EFTA00802160.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. EFTA00802160 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 EFTA00802161 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• EFTA00802162 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. 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• EFTA00802163  26. All documents evidencing relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and MC2 or any modeling agencies. 27. Yearbooks of 28. 2002 Royal Palm Beach High School Year Book. 29. 2001 Royal Palm Beach High School Year Book. 30. 2003 Palm Beach Gardens High School Year Book. 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• EFTA00802164  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 E.W. v. Jeffrey Epstein, 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 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• EFTA00802165  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• EFTA00802166  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 to 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach FL 33480. 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 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 for 90. Ted's Sheds 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 EFTA00802167  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 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'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• EFTA00802168  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 Milton Girls Juvenile Facility. Edwards is the only alleged victim in this case. 117. Victim's Medical Records from Dr. Randee Speciale. Edwards is the only alleged victim in this case. 118. Victim's Medical Records from Wellington Regional Hospital. Edwards is the only alleged victim in this case. 119. Victim's Medical Records from St. Mary's Medical Center. Edwards is the only alleged victim in this case. 120. Victim's Medical Records from United Health. 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• EFTA00802169  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 EFTA00802170 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 EFTA00802171 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 EFTA00802172 (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 EFTA00802173 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 EFTA00802174 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 EFTA00802175 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• EFTA00802176 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. E. 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 EFTA00802177 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. E.I. 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 EFTA00802178 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 EFTA00802179 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 EFTA00802180  3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Detective 9. Chief 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 Epstein cannot possibly make a d

EFTA00738559.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 32 pages

Proceedings July 31, 2009 Page 1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 3 4 E.W., 5 Plaintiff, 6 vs. Case No. 502008CA028058 7 XXXXMB AD JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 8 Defendant. 9 10 11 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE 12 HONORABLE JUDGE DONALD W. HAFELE 13 14 July 31, 2009 8:30 a.m. - 9:05 a.m. 15 16 205 N. Dixie Highway 17 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Jennifer DiLorenzo, court reporter 25 EFTA00738559 Page 2 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 2 3 On behalf of the Plaintiff: 4 ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT & ADLER BY: WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESQ., 5 Mizner Park Office Tower Suite 675 6 225 NE Mizner Boulevard Boca Raton, FL 33432 7 8 ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT & ADLER 9 BY: BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ., 401 East Las Olas Boulevard 10 Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 11 12 13 On behalf of the Defendant: 14 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN BY: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., 15 515 North Flagler Drive Suite 400 16 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA00738560 Page 3 1 Proceedings in the Matter of E.W. vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. 2 July 31, 2009 8:30 3 THE COURT: Good morning, gentlemen. 4 We're here this morning on the Plaintiff's 5 motions to add punitive damages. Who will be 6 arguing on behalf of the Plaintiff? 7 MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Alright, Mr. Edwards. 9 MR. EDWARDS: Do I need to go to the 10 podium or is right here fine? 11 THE COURT: Whichever you prefer. 12 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, with our motion 13 we filed - and, I believe, Your Honor has it - 14 the discovery that was submitted to Mr. Epstein, 15 which consists of Requests for Admissions, 16 Requests for Production, Interrogatories, as 17 well as Interrogatory responses under oath by my 18 client. 19 THE COURT: Do you have any cases that 20 speak to the presumption relative to the 21 Defendant exercising his Fifth and Sixth 22 Amendment rights during the deposition testimony 23 and/or during any other discovery? 24 MR. EDWARDS: Sure, Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: I know that Mr. Critton in his EFTA00738561 Page 4 1 reply memorandum indicated some conflict in 2 terms of the nature of the discussions of the 3 appellate courts relative to that issue. 4 MR. EDWARDS: May I approach? 5 THE COURT: Thank you. 6 MR. EDWARDS: I'm going to present the 7 case of Fraser vs. Security and Investment out 8 of the Fourth DCA. 9 The pertinent part, it says: "Our 10 conclusion is consistent with the prevailing 11 rule that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid 12 adverse inferences against parties to civil 13 actions when they refuse to testify in response 14 to probative evidence offered against them: the 15 amendment 'does not preclude the inference where 16 the privilege is claimed by a party to a civil 17 cause.'" 18 It skips down and says: "Such a rule is 19 both logical and utilitarian. A party may not 20 trample upon the rights of others and then 21 escape the consequences by invoking a 22 constitutional privilege - at least not in a 23 civil setting." 24 The final paragraph on that page says: 25 "Nor are we persuaded that the fact of EFTA00738562 Page 5 1 invocation of the privilege is irrelevant and 2 immaterial." "In the case" -- Sorry, "Mr. 3 Justice Brandeis... observed that 'Silence is 4 often evidence of the most persuasive 5 character.'" 6 Clearly, this case, out of our district 7 court, is an indication that adverse inferences 8 may be drawn. 9 Right now we are at a punitive damages 10 stage. We are not at a stage where we are 11 talking about the admissibility of evidence. We 12 are -- 13 THE COURT: Speaking only of a proffer to 14 establish punitive damages as required under 15 768.721, correct? 16 MR. EDWARDS: Exactly, and I was going to, 17 for the record, read that part of 768.721: "In 18 a civil action, there is a" -- 19 THE COURT: I think we can skip that. 20 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. 21 THE COURT: The statute speaks for itself 22 and it's a part of the record today, so why 23 don't you go ahead and proceed? 24 MR. EDWARDS: The reasonable showing, by 25 way of proffer, that there is an intentional EFTA00738563 Page6 1 misconduct or gross negligence on behalf of the 2 Defendant. 3 Intentional misconduct is defined as "the 4 Defendant had actual knowledge of the wrong 5 permissible conduct and the high probability 6 that injury or damage to the claimant would 7 result and, despite that knowledge, 8 intentionally pursued that course of conduct 9 resulting in injury or damage." 10 In this case, we have intentional 11 misconduct of the worse kind. This is a case 12 that has been presented to the public through 13 public relations people for the Defendant at 14 times as "five or six bad under-aged prostitutes 15 from a high school that, as one of their stops, 16 wound up at Mr. Epstein's home," and that's not 17 the case at all. 18 What the evidence is really going to show 19 is that Mr. Epstein - at least dating back as 20 far as our investigation and resources have 21 permitted, back to 1997 or '98 - has every 22 single day of his life, made an attempt to 23 sexually abuse children. 24 We're not talking about five, we're not 25 talking about 20, we're not talking about 100, EFTA00738564 Page 7 1 we're not talking about 400, which, I believe, 2 is the number known to law enforcement, we are 3 talking about thousands of children, and it is 4 through a very intricate and complicated system 5 that he devised where he has as many as 20 6 people working underneath him that he is paying 7 well to schedule these appointments, to locate 8 these girls. 9 He particularly goes after a very 10 vulnerable and impressionable age group that -- 11 THE COURT: To use the quotation, "the 12 evidence will show the Defendant sought out 13 underprivileged and economically disadvantaged 14 minor females," and later go on to say, 15 "influenced them away from the typical 16 adolescent lifestyle as a result of his 17 allegedly criminal acts." 18 MR. EDWARDS: And that is exactly what 19 he's done. The age group begins as young as 20 12 years old and as old as 16 years old. There 21 will be evidence that at 16 years old, many of 22 the girls are told, "You're getting too old for 23 me." 24 He very clearly targets this specific age 25 group and has a method to this; that is, "Get EFTA00738565 Page8 1 the girls inside the house and I will do the 2 rest," and he creates this God-like aura for 3 these girls and -- 4 THE COURT: Let's talk about - pardon me 5 for interrupting you - let's talk about the 6 precise claims that are being made here. You're 7 dealing with - they're pseudonyms 8 for purposes of this litigation. Why don't we 9 speak to those two individuals at this juncture 10 and how the punitive damage proffer is 11 sufficient or insufficient relative to them 12 individually, please? 13 I understand the global allegations and I 14 understand the allegedly wide scale situation 15 that you're suggesting as you've alleged here, 16 but I want to go now to the precise claims made 17 by these two Plaintiffs who are in front of the 18 Court today, and whether or not that proffer is 19 sufficient to satisfy the case law, including 20 the case that Mr. Critton cited, and that is: 21 The Estate of Despain, D-E-S-P-A-I-N, vs. Avante 22 Group, Inc., which is found at 900 So.2d. 637, 23 and that was a Fifth District Court of Appeal 24 case, decided in 2005. 25 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, Your Honor, and that is EFTA00738566 Page 9 1 the case that states: "a 'proffer' according to 2 traditional notions of the term, connotes merely 3 an 'offer' of evidence and neither the term 4 standing alone nor the statute itself calls for 5 an adjudication of the underlying veracity...is 6 merely a representation of what evidence the 7 defendant proposes to present." 8 We can turn to the sworn Interrogatory 9 answers, No. 8, wherein =. and, similarly, 10 , in slightly different words, states: "I 11 was touched, battered, and fondled by Defendant 12 Jeffrey Epstein during the incidents described 13 in the complaint. I observed the Defendant 14 touch and fondle himself. I observed the 15 Defendant ejaculate numerous times. I was made 16 to touch the Defendant. I also observed sexual 17 acts and had sexual acts perpetrated on me by 18 Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. At various times I 19 was unclothed, as was the Defendant and others. 20 At all times material, I was a child under the 21 age of 18 years old. The Defendant also used me 22 to bring him other minor girls and he controlled 23 and brainwashed me" -- 24 THE COURT: Just a second. 25 (Telephone interruption.) EFTA00738567 Page 10 1 MR. EDWARDS: -- "and brainwashed me into 2 believing this lifestyle was healthy and normal 3 for a girl my age. I was a victim of various 4 criminal acts and sexual exploitation. I was 5 induced and coerced by Defendant into acts of 6 prostitution." 7 While we're on the coercion and 8 prostitution, there is a specific -- 9 THE COURT: Before you move on, that's 10 - 11 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: -- Answer to Interro atories? 13 Why don't you read into the record Answer 14 to Interrogatories so the record is clear? 15 MR. EDWARDS: I apologize, Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: Take your time. 17 MR. EDWARDS: Answer to Interrogatory No. 18 8 for indicates: "My injuries are 19 emotional and psychological and are the direct 20 result of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's actions. 21 I was touched, battered, and fondled by the 22 Defendant during the incidents described in the 23 complaints. I observed the Defendant touch and 24 fondle himself. I observed the Defendant 25 ejaculate numerous times. I was made to touch EFTA00738568 Page 11 1 the Defendant. I also observed sexual acts and 2 had sexual acts perpetrated on me and was forced 3 to perform on me, including oral sex and other 4 activities. At various times I was unclothed, 5 as was Defendant and others. At all times 6 material, I was a child under the age of 7 18 years. I was a victim of various criminal 8 acts and sexual exploitation. I was induced and 9 coerced by the Defendant into acts of 10 prostitution." 11 THE COURT: Thank you. You were going to 12 speak to a legal point -- 13 MR. EDWARDS: Right. 14 THE COURT: -- before I asked you to read 15 into the record those Interrogatory answers. Go 16 ahead. 17 MR. EDWARDS: Where we left off was the 18 coercion into prostitution. What makes these 19 crimes so egregious is the fact that these girls 20 that we're talking about were all beginning 21 their grooming process with Mr. Epstein when 22 they're 14 and 15 and 16 years old. 23 There is a specific statute, which we have 24 filed, and a cause of action under our 25 complaint, that is under 796.09, Coercion, civil EFTA00738569 Page 12 1 cause of action. 2 Reading 796.09, Paragraph 1: "A person 3 has a cause of action for compensatory and 4 punitive damages" - this is in the statute - 5 "against a person who coerced them into 6 prostitution," and it goes on to define what 7 coercion means, and it is exactly what happened 8 in this case. 9 This statute allows for punitive damages 10 on a statutory level irrespective of the age of 11 the person that is coerced into prostitution. 12 THE COURT: And the coercion that you're 13 talking about are the alleged acts as between 14 these two Plaintiffs and Mr. Epstein as opposed 15 to, I think, there's something in one of the 16 Interrogatories that suggests that there may 17 have been prostitution that followed, at least 18 one of the Plaintiff's, involvement with Mr. 19 Epstein, but you're speaking solely about the 20 prostitution issues as it concerns the 21 Plaintiffs here and Epstein; is that accurate? 22 MR. EDWARDS: I believe, if I understand 23 what you are saying, I mean, in terms of 24 damages, if one of the Plaintiffs - and I can 25 represent - if one of the Plaintiffs was led EFTA00738570 Page 13 1 into a life of prostitution after being 2 indoctrinated into this deviant lifestyle at an 3 early age by Mr. Epstein - she was not a 4 prostitute prior to that - and I relate that 5 similar to kids of that age being brought over 6 to somebody's house that is as powerful and 7 wealthy as him and he has, let's say, cocaine on 8 the table, and they do that for three years. 9 They think it's fun at the time, but after that 10 they have this addiction that continues on. 11 This is something similar to what happened to 12 one of the clients. 13 But, yes, the coercion into prostitution 14 is something that on a statutory level already 15 allows for punitive damages, and that's 16 irrespective of the age. 17 THE COURT: Again, I'm trying to 18 understand the factual basis. There's 19 allegations that Mr. Epstein paid these young 20 ladies $200 to massage him and then subsequent 21 thereto, there was some type of alleged sexual 22 activity. Are you speaking to that specifically 23 when you're talking about the statutory remedy 24 or are you speaking about something distinct 25 from that? EFTA00738571 Page14 1 MR. EDWARDS: No, that's specifically what 2 I am talking about -- 3 THE COURT: Okay. 4 MR. EDWARDS: -- Mr. Epstein paying them 5 and using their age, their economic - their lack 6 of wealth - the fact that these are poor, 7 disadvantaged children with very little parental 8 guidance to his advantage to induce them into 9 acts of prostitution. 10 THE COURT: I'll give you two minutes to 11 wrap up, please. 12 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. 13 Your Honor, while I know that we are 14 focusing on _and ., there are certain 15 defenses that have been made such as, "The girls 16 were" - "we didn't know that they were over 18, 17 otherwise we wouldn't have done this," where we 18 are going to be able to show there are hundreds 19 and hundreds and hundreds of girls and none of 20 them were over the age of 18. 21 Many of these girls, including my clients, 22 told him that they were under the age of 18 and 23 he continued to do this misconduct, which is 24 exactly what the statute or what the punitive 25 damages statute speaks to when it talks about EFTA00738572 Page 15 1 intentional misconduct and/or gross negligence. 2 I think the record is very clear at this 3 point, especially after this proffer, that if 4 any case is deservant of punitive damages being 5 added, it's this one. 6 THE COURT: Alright. Thank you. I'll 7 give you a couple minutes to wrap up after Mr. 8 Critton finishes his argument. 9 MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: Thank you. 11 MR. CRITTON: May it please the Court. As 12 the Court knows, I represent Mr. Epstein in this 13 matter. 14 Your Honor, a couple of things to start - 15 the case that Mr. Edwards cites deals with 16 inferences, deals with inferences at trial time 17 as distinct from inferences that, I believe, are 18 sufficient to carry the day, so-to-speak, in the 19 absence of other evidence with Mr. Epstein's 20 claim of Fifth Amendment privilege. As well, we 21 cited to the court cases - and I'll get to in 22 just a minute - that specifically address that 23 issue. 24 Secondly, we're not here on - and I think 25 the Court, I think, I kind of at least got the EFTA00738573 Page 16 1 drift is we're not here on other claims - we're 2 here on= and .'s claim today to add 3 punitive damages and, in fact, "Do they meet the 4 standard under the applicable statute in this 5 instance?" 6 What I think is the most striking part 7 about this - and while I believe that the 8 evidence may be - their perception, the 9 Plaintiffs' perception of the evidence - may be 10 different than ourselves, but I think the 11 evidence in this case will show, at least . 12 and E.W., were prostitutes before they ever met 13 Mr. Epstein, they remain prostitutes, and they 14 are still prostitutes today. 15 THE COURT: But is my role today one of 16 weighing the evidence or one of determining 17 whether or not there's a sufficient record in 18 order to allow a punitive damage claim to stand? 19 I mean, in one of the cases, I believe - 20 it's the case of State of Wisconsin Investment 21 Board vs. Plantation Square Associates, that's 22 found at 761 F.Supp 1569 - Judge Bugler 23 (phonetic) of the federal court provided an 24 excellent discussion of the distinction between 25 the proofs necessary to sustain a claim for EFTA00738574 Page 17 1 punitive damages even at summary judgment, much 2 less a trial, and compared that with the 3 relatively lighter burden of simply making a 4 proffer of record evidence to support a claim 5 for punitive damages. 6 MR. CRITTON: Right. 7 THE COURT: Aren't we at that stage; that 8 is, the latter stage right now? 9 MR. CRITTON: Yes, and I very well 10 understand the distinction and, I believe, I 11 understand what the Court's role is in this 12 particular instance in making that 13 determination. 14 A couple of the issues though, in 15 particular - with a camera here today, for some 16 unknown reason, showing up at this hearing - is 17 there were references to drugs, alcohol, other 18 instances that are not applicable to this case. 19 There's no pleadings on that particular issue, 20 and I'm concerned about that, is that there's an 21 attempt to jack this up in the media, as I said, 22 with the camera here today, for no other 23 hearing. It's ridiculous under the 24 circumstances, and to make all of these wild 25 allegations against Mr. Epstein for which there EFTA00738575 Page 18 1 is absolutely no evidentiary proof nor was that 2 submitted here in support of their proffer, I 3 did want to address at that. 4 So let me get to the heart of the issue. 5 I think the most distinguishing part of this 6 particular case that's different; that is, 7 ands, is the fact that . gave a sworn 8 statement to the FBI in this instance. 9 Again, there's a strong distinction. She 10 gave a sworn statement back in '05 or in '06. 11 She had - . did - she had an attorney, Mr. 12 Eisenberg, it was before she had a civil lawyer 13 who's seeking millions of dollars under these 14 circumstances, and the testimony of . at that 15 time was very significant and it flies directly 16 in the face of her "sworn testimony" or her 17 "sworn interrogatories." 18 The Court had Mr. Edwards read in .'s 19 answer and answer to their 20 Interrogatories as to what allegedly occurred 21 with Mr. Epstein and, "Oh, surprise," they were 22 almost verbatim, word for word, as to what 23 allegedly happened. 24 But at the time of her sworn statement to 25 the FBI, . said on 4/24/07 - again, it was an EFTA00738576 Page 19 1 FBI agent and a U.S. attorney that was there at 2 the time - and she talked about going over to 3 Mr. Epstein's house. She said, "I had a fake 4 ID." She was told to make certain that she was 5 18. She told Mr. Epstein she was 18, and she 6 said it was her understanding that all of the 7 other girls that she brought for this horrific 8 experience - she continued to bring other girls 9 and go herself on a number of occasions. 10 She said that she, herself -- On Page 8, 11 it asks, "Did she ever call you?" - and I assume 12 that was someone else - and she goes, "No. I 13 gave Jeffrey my number and, I said, you know, if 14 you want me to give you a massage again, 15 basically I'm more than anxious to come." 16 On Page 9, . says, "I willingly took" - 17 "so I willingly, the first time, took off my top 18 when I gave him the massage and nothing more 19 than that." 20 She goes on to say in her testimony at 21 Page 10, her sworn statement, "I said, I told 22 Jeffrey, 'I heard that you like massages 23 topless.'" 24 "And he said 'Like, yeah.' He said, 'But 25 you don't have to do anything that you don't EFTA00738577 Page 20 1 feel comfortable with.'" 2 "And I said, 'Okay,' but I willingly took 3 it off" - this is . at the time. This is her 4 sworn testimony. 5 At Page 17, the police officer or the FBI 6 agent says, "and when he turned over then did he 7 touch you at all or was he just" -- Her answer 8 was, "No, I did not touch him, he did not touch 9 me. He didn't even want..." and i assume to 10 "touch you." 11 She goes on to say, "He didn't want me to 12 touch him and he didn't touch me." 13 She goes on and on in this statement, 14 ., in the statement and she says, "We had 15 fun." 16 "It was positive," on Page 18. 17 On Page 19, "You know, I would wear 18 panties. Willingly one time, because we were 19 making jokes and everything, and willingly one 20 time, I had, yes, I was totally nude, but I was 21 fine with that." 22 She talks about within the statement the 23 other girls that she brought over. Again, she's 24 testified or she gives the Interrogatory answer 25 that this was outrageous to her, but, yet she EFTA00738578 Page 21 1 brought other girls to experience this. She 2 says - now that she has a civil lawyer seeking 3 money damages - now "it's a bad experience." 4 Now all of a sudden, "He touched me, he did 5 these things to me." 6 She references - at least, on Page 29 of 7 the statement, Judge - there's a "W" that's 8 referenced. "W" I would represent to be in 9 the complaint, and I think we established 10 that when Mr. Berger and I were arguing a prior 11 motion to you. So she talks about on Page 12 29. 13 That's when she starts saying, she says, 14 - "she," meaning , "was my baby's 15 father's girlfriend at the time." ii 16 Then on Page 30, "How old was 17 "She was 17." 18 Alright, so you have 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. 19 You have . saying "W" was 17 at the time. 20 "And what happened when 'W' came over?" 21 She said the same thing, "She went a few 22 times." 23 On Page 31, . testified under oath to 24 the FBI and the United States attorney, "None of 25 my girls ever had a problem. And they'd call EFTA00738579 Page 22 1 me. They begged me, you know, for us to go to 2 Jeffrey's house because they loved Jeffrey. 3 Jeffrey is a respectful man, he really is. I 4 mean, he all thought we were of age, always, 5 that's what's so sad about it." 6 And she goes on, Page 36, and the FBI says 7 to her, "Now, when you were working for him, you 8 were going over to Jeffrey's house to give him 9 massages, did you have a boyfriend?" 10 "Yeah." 11 "And how did your boyfriend feel about 12 it?" 13 "He was" -- . says, "He was a jealous 14 little boy, but he didn't care, 'Bring home the 15 bacon,'" and the statement goes on and on, Your 16 Honor. I know you've had an opportunity read it 17 before and I reference again today. 18 There's clearly a distinction conflict 19 between ., now that she has a civil lawyer 20 and she wants money, versus at the time that she 21 didn't want money and she gave a statement under 22 oath to the FBI and the United States attorney's 23 office. 24 I recognize the Court's role in this. I 25 recognize the standard. I recognize that both EFTA00738580 Page 23 1 . ands in their Answers to 2 Interrogatories have made all sorts of, what we 3 believe in part, are baseless or in large part 4 baseless allegations, but we also have sworn 5 testimony of . on this instance. 6 We don't have it of E.W., but we have . 7 testifying about her own experience under oath: 8 That it was positive; that he never used force, 9 that she willingly did a number of times 10 including giving topless massages; that Mr. 11 Epstein never touched her; that she never 12 touched him inappropriately, all she did was 13 basically give him massages; that , in this 14 instance, as well as all the other girls that 15 she took, she spoke with them afterwards, they 16 begged to go back to Mr. Epstein's home, and 17 none of them, not one of them ever complained. 18 So there's a large chasm between what is 19 now being asserted in Answers to Interrogatories 20 and mere allegations in the complaint between 21 what the sworn testimony, at least ., was 22 under the circumstances, as it relates to 23 herself and what she was told by and other 24 girls. 25 Thank you, Your Honor. EFTA00738581 Page 24 1 THE COURT: Thank you. 2 Mr. Edwards, I'll give you a couple 3 minutes here. 4 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, I want to 5 address the statement that was made by to 6 the FBI and how that even came about. This is a 7 girl who, at the time of the statement, was 8 fairly unaware of the investigation against Mr. 9 Epstein, who is now, as we know, a convicted sex 10 offender. 11 An attorney showed up to her house, paid 12 for by Mr. Epstein, to represent her despite - 13 and told her that, "For your role, you could 14 possibly be implicated in some wrongdoing." 15 MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, just -- 16 MR. EDWARDS: He represent -- 17 MR. CRITTON: -- note my objection. This 18 is complete hearsay here. He was aware of what 19 was filed. He didn't file any affidavits for 20 his client in opposition. I would object to any 21 of this. 22 THE COURT: Alright. I don't want to get 23 into any of the details. I don't think it's 24 necessary at this juncture, which probably leads 25 me to my question to you; that is: Is the EFTA00738582 Page 25 1 weighing of evidence appropriate at this 2 juncture? 3 MR. EDWARDS: No, Your Honor, I don't 4 believe that's the standard at this stage 5 anyway, and I don't think that Mr. Critton 6 believes that either. 7 Just so the record's clear, we had nothing 8 to do with the video camera being here, although 9 that was implied. I don't know who did. I 10 don't know if it was Mr. Critton, but it wasn't 11 me. 12 THE COURT: Dan is always welcome here. 13 MR. EDWARDS: It's perfectly fine, but I 14 don't like that being on the record, that it 15 looks like I did it when I didn't. 16 THE COURT: I understand. We have a 17 record here. The official record is being taken 18 down by our fine court reporter, so. 19 MR. EDWARDS: Either way, sounds like what 20 we just heard, that the reason that punitive 21 should not be allowed here is because these 22 14-year-old girls did this willingly. 23 We know that they're 14 years old, Mr. 24 Critton knows they were 14, 15 year olds. There 25 were message pads and scheduling books in EFTA00738583 Page 26 1 Epstein's possession indicating the dates, which 2 would show how old those girls were, and that's 3 evidence that will be presented in this case. 4 There are serious statutes to protect 5 these kids from this kind of conduct, and these 6 second and third degree felonies were committed 7 repeatedly against them, and this is a case 8 where, at least in a civil case, punitive 9 damages are warranted, Your Honor. 10 Thank you, Your Honor. 11 THE COURT: Thank you both. I'm going to 12 grant the motion. In conformance with and 13 following the Despain case, the Court indicates, 14 in following the analysis of Judge Hugler - and, 15 by the way, that analysis of Judge Hugler is 16 commented upon on a supportive basis by several 17 appellate courts - and in the Despain case under 18 headnote 7 and 8 on Page 642 it states: "a 19 'proffer' according to traditional notions of 20 the term, connotes merely an 'offer' of evidence 21 and neither the term standing alone nor the 22 statute itself calls for an adjudication of the 23 underlying veracity of that which is submitted, 24 much less for countervailing evidentiary 25 submissions." EFTA00738584 Page 27 1 The Court finds that, while I appreciate 2 Mr. Critton's argument and while I appreciate 3 his submission, that essentially at this stage, 4 respectfully, he is, at this point, presenting 5 countervailing evidentiary submissions. 6 The Court further goes on in paraphrasing 7 and then directly quoting Judge Hugler: 8 "Therefore a proffer is merely a representation 9 of what evidence the defendant proposes to 10 present and is not actual evidence." Actually, 11 that's a quote from Grim vs. State, 841 So.2d. 12 455, 462, and that, I believe, is a Florida 13 Supreme Court case, even though the citation 14 itself is not complete. 15 It goes on to say importantly - and that 16 is in the Despain case - "A reasonable showing 17 by evidence in the record would typically 18 include depositions, interrogatories, and 19 requests for admissions that have been filed 20 with the court. Hence, an evidentiary hearing 21 where witnesses testify and evidence is offered 22 and scrutinized under the pertinent evidentiary 23 rules, as in a trial, is neither contemplated 24 nor mandated by the statute in order to 25 determine whether a reasonable basis has been EFTA00738585 Page 28 1 established to plead punitive damages," and I'll 2 admit this citation from the Fifth District 3 Court of Appeal, but, again, that is cited in 4 Despain. 5 Likewise, in Strasser vs. Yalamanchi, 677 6 So.2d. 22, which is a Florida Fourth District 7 Court of Appeal case from 1996, which is one of 8 the paradigm cases on the proffering of punitive 9 damage evidence, that states that "there was 10 reasonable basis for recovery of punitive 11 damages" can be demonstrated by either a 12 presentation of supporting evidence already in 13 the record or by a proffer of the evidence to 14 come. 15 I find that a combination of the Answers 16 to Interrogatories - I will take into account, 17 though, give little weight to the Fifth 18 Amendment arguments of Plaintiffs - but 19 certainly the Answers to Interrogatories on 20 behalf of both of these individual Plaintiffs in 21 this Court's view, and particularly in 22 conjunction with the Coercion statute relative 23 to prostitution, 796.09, would form a reasonable 24 basis to establish at least a claim for punitive 25 damages, recognizing that, again, the courts EFTA00738586 Page 29 1 have made clear that the proffer and the burden 2 on the moving party is much less than at summary 3 judgment or at trial, so I will allow the 4 amendments to proceed and, therefore, we do have 5 an amended complaint, so how much time will you 6 need, Mr. Critton, to respond? 7 MR. CRITTON: I just wrote to Mr. Berger 8 20 days I would like for both of them, if that's 9 agreeable with the Court. 10 THE COURT: Fine with me, as long as it's 11 fine with the Plaintiffs. 12 MR. BERGER: Yes, Your Honor. I drafted 13 an order and just showed it to Mr. Critton. It 14 just says: "Granted for reasons stated on the 15 record. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint 16 to allege a count for battery" - which is also 17 part of our motion, which was unopposed - "and 18 punitive damages. The defense shall have 20 19 days to respond." 20 THE COURT: I believe you already filed 21 the proposed amended complaint. 22 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, Your Honor. I filed it 23 with the motion. 24 MR. BERGER: I'll correct that. 25 THE COURT: You can indicate in there -- EFTA00738587 Page 30 1 MR. CRITTON: Deemed filed. 2 THE COURT: -- "the amended complaint 3 shall be deemed filed as of the date of this 4 order from today." 5 MR. BERGER: We'll draft it out there and 6 present it to the bailiff. 7 THE COURT: Not a problem. Thank you very 8 much. Gentlemen, thank you for your arguments 9 and your submissions and have a good rest of the 10 week. 11 MR. CRITTON: If they get it typed I'll 12 take a copy. 13 (The hearing concluded at 9:05 a.m.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA00738588 Page 31 1 CERTIFICATE 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 4 COUNTY OF BROWARD ) 5 6 7 I, JENNIFER D. DiLORENZO, Shorthand 8 Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did 9 stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and 10 that the transcript is a true and complete record of 11 my stenographic notes. 12 13 Dated this 5th day of August, 2009. 14 15 16 17 18 19 JENNIFER D. DiLORENZO, COURT REPORTER 20 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA00738589 EFTA00738590

EFTA00225044.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 58 pages

STATEMENT OF IN RESPONSE TO APRIL 2, 2019 LETTER FROM JEFFREY R. RAGSDALE To the extent possible, I have provided all information relevant to your inquiry, including applicable documents. Due to the passage of time, updates to various software and hardware, and the crash of my work laptop several years ago, I no longer have every piece of relevant material and my memory may be imperfect.' I have organized the response to conform with the April 2, 2019 letter from Jeffrey R. Ragsdale to Jonathan Biran. Please note that there were numerous oral and written communications between others at the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Justice Department with counsel for Mr. Epstein. While in some cases I was told of the communications or cc'ed on emails or letters summarizing the communications, for many conversations, meetings, and emails, I do not have knowledge of what occurred. Introduction The investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and I series of co-conspirators, named "Operation Leap Year," officially began in May 2006. In theory, it was supposed to conclude on September 24, 2007 with the signing of I "Non-Prosecution Agreement" ("NPA").2 As will be discussed below, the investigation presented several issues of first impression and challenges related to obtaining evidence and securing the coo eration of witnesses. Nonetheless, I felt certain that the agents, my co-counsel, and I had built ve strop case against Mr. Epstein and three of his rsonal assistants — and The case was presented for federal investigation by the Palm Beach Police Department after they felt that Jeffrey Epstein's legal team had put inappropriate pressure on the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office to file only misdemeanor charges. Allegations of misconduct had been leveled against the local detective and the Police Chief and they reported being followed and harassed. As described below, the defense attorneys employed the same tactics at the federal level against myself and the FBI. With regard to the exhibits, whenever possible, I have used copies of original documents or "scanned" originals that were made at the time. In some cases, all that I have are the electronic documents (i.e., the Word Perfect letter that was printed, signed, and mailed or faxed). Because our computers no longer have Word Perfect, I have used "Quick Print" which has distorted the formatting. If I am providing something that I know is I "draft," I note that either in the text or in the exhibit list. The fact that something does not contain I signature does not mean that it is draft, it just means that it was printed from the electronic version and I no longer have (or never had) copy of the original. For example, I often drafted letters for the signatures of Jeff , and Alex Acosta. Their assistants would have maintained the signed originals. In some cases, I would be provided with copies and sometimes I would not. I would usually notate my electronic files with "final" to know which was the final version, or the last- modified version. 2 For reasons set forth below, the investigation continued due to Epstein's post-NPA conduct. Page 1of 58 EFTA00225044  Once the USAO opened the file, Epstein took the same approach that had been used with the State — at each level of review, he hired an attorney with I personal connection to the MUSA/13OJ Attorney who was conducting the review. The attorneys raised I series of challenges to the veracity of the victims and the veracity of the state investigators, as well as quasi- Petite-policy arguments. When those failed, more formal legal analysis and federalism policy arguments were presented. Throughout this process, I wanted to keep my investigation as confidential as possible. For example, I did not see the benefit of telling Epstein's counsel that we had uncovered additional victims, that we had been able to corroborate victims' accounts, or the legal theories that we were pursuing. My objections to malS these disclosures were all overruled. Also, unbeknownst to me, at least one supervisory was engaging in plea discussions with counsel for Epstein without consulting with me, the agents, or the victims. These discussions led to the creation of the NPA — an agreement that allowed Epstein to plead guilty to state charges in exchange for immunity for federal prosecution by the USAO for the Southern District of Florida. After the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, when I attempted to notify the victims and enforce the agreement, the attacks became more personal. Epstein's attorneys raised the same policy arguments — which could have been raised prior to signing the NPA — as high as the DAG's Office, and coupled them with claims of prosecutorial misconduct. As these attacks occurred, the USAO — U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta and later First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff offered Epstein the option of simply "unwinding"3 the NPA — after all, he had never performed any part of it. In my mind it was unfathomable that Epstein would be allowed to spend months attacking not just the validity of our investigation and the validity of the NPA, but also making false allegations of prosecutorial misconduct against myself and FAUSA and still be allowed the benefit of what was, in my opinion, an unreasonably favorable agreement. Since everyone from the U.S. Attorney down to me agreed that the case was headed for I trial, the investigation continued, including identifying additional victims, conducting interviews, issuing grand jury subpoenas, drafting revised indictment packages, and presenting testimony to the grand jury. Epstein's clear intent to go to trial was on display during this period as he deposed victims identified only through the federal investigation in the guise of taking discovery in the state case. On June 23, 2008, en the DAG's Office issued his letter denying Epstein's final appeal. While USA Acosta allowed Epstein the benefit of the NPA, Epstein still tried to avoid several key parts of the NPA's terms, and would have escaped them but for my insistence. On June 30, 2008, Epstein entered his guilty plea in state court and was sentenced to 18 months' in the county jail in accordance with the terms of his state plea agreement and the NPA. Not long thereafter, I learned that Epstein had applied for work release and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office had granted the application. Prior to Epstein's guilty plea, the issue of work release had been specifically discussed with Epstein's counsel and they informed us that Epstein would not seek work release. The agents and I also met with the Sheriffs Office in advance of the plea and had been told that Epstein would not be eligible for work release. Accordingly, I provided my Notice of Breach, but was told by defense attorney Roy Black that, despite those specific conversations, USA Acosta himself agreed that Epstein would be eligible for any program 3 "Unwinding" was USA Acosta's term for mutual rescission — the USAO could file its charges and Epstein would have no obligations to plead guilty in state or federal court. Page 2 of 58 EFTA00225045 that the state offered, including work release. Because of this, I had to withdraw the Notice of Breach and could only write I letter to the Sheriff's Office pointing out all of the false statements contained in Epstein's application for work release and letters to the victims informing them that Epstein was in work release status. The Sheriff's Office never responded to or acknowledged my letter. On June 9, 2009, I prepared what I believe was the last Memorandum requesting authorization to issue I Notice of Breach and to indict Epstein. The Office authorized issuance of the Notice of Breach, and the Indictment Packages was re-reviewed, a roved, and signed, with arrest warrants for Jeffrey Epstein, and . The Notice of Breach was served on June 12, 2009 at I hearing on Epstein's Motion to Dismiss one of the civil suits filed by one of the victims identified during the federal investigation. Once again, Epstein was allowed to "cure" his breach, and we were not allowed to file the indictment. There were strong internal disagreements on I number of subjects, including: the handling of the meetings with Epstein's counsel; plea negotiations; the NPA generally; the failure to consult with the victims; continuing plea negotiations in the face of Epstein's clear bad faith; the refusal to defend me against personal attacks from Epstein's attorneys; the agreement to put off seeking Epstein's computer equipment; the consultations with Epstein's attorneys regarding victim notifications; the handling of the "appeals" to Washington; allowing delays during those "appeals," while Epstein's attorneys were harassing the victims and their family members; attempts by Epstein to renegotiate the term of imprisonment; attempts by Epstein to renegotiate the payment of damages to the victims and attorneys' fees to their attorney representative; allowing Epstein to participate in the work release program after specifically discussing it during plea negotiations; and repeatedly allowing Epstein to "cure" intentional breaches of the NPA. These were kept internal as I tried to deal professionally with opposing counsel. In the midst of all of the post-NPA back-and-forth with Epstein, was the Jane Doe. United States litigation.4 Despite the Office's request to be recused from the case, the Justice Department decided that there was no conflict of interest and I was tasked with serving as co-counsel. The Office asserted attorney-client, executive, work product, and deliberative process privileges, so all of the internal disagreements, pros memos, and indictments were not disclosed while all of my communications with opposing counsel (often at the behest of supervisors) were disclosed. After an initial flurry of filings, Brad Edwards, as counsel for the named plaintiffs, stated on the record that he believed that setting aside the NPA would not benefit his clients, and he sued Epstein on behalf of I number of victims under the NPA. I did what I could to assist Mr. Edwards, other attorneys, including Mr. Josefsberg, the attorney selected by the Special Master, and the Court, to locate victims, provide signed copies of the NPA, and answer questions. After all of the civil suits between Epstein and the victims were settled through the spectre of breaching the NPA, Mr. Edwards re-initiated the Jane Doe United States litigation, asserting that his clients wanted to 4 1 few days after Jeffrey Epstein entered his guilty plea in state court, attorney Brad Edwards filed suit on behalf of one of the victims identified in the federal investigation (later expanded to include I second victim who had been identified in the state investigation), alleging violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The suit, which is still pending, is captioned Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 21 United States, 08-80736-CV-KAM. Page 3 of 58 EFTA00225046 set aside the NPA and see Mr. Epstein federally charged due to violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. In response to your questions, I have attempted to distill the past 13 years of emails, letters, research, pleadings, and conversations into I coherent document and attach the most relevant items. Given the sheer volume of materials involved here and the passage of time, while I have worked diligently to answer your questions as fully as possible, I certainly could have missed something amongst the thousands of pages of emails, drafts, and hard copy and electronic documents. If there are additional items or topics that need further explanation or more documentation, I can delve further. The Non-Prosecution Agreement 1. Describe the circumstances under which the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein was referred to the USAO, including when, why, how, and by whom the referral was made. Explain why the USAO decided to initiate I federal grand jury investigation into this matter, including what federal interests were perceived to be involved, and identify the individuals participating in the decision. Some time in early 2006, FBI Special Agent E. approached me about an investigation being conducted b the Town of Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD"). I do not know how or when A was first contacted about the matter. The first mentions of the investigation were just jpassing comments during meetings on other matters. and I were working on I number of different child exploitation matters at the time, along with ICE Special Agent David Malone. I remember generally that SA mentioned an investigation of I wealthy man who lived on Palm Beach and recruited minors for sexual activity. During these casual conversations, I do not believe that Mr. Epstein's name was mentioned. If it was mentioned, it held no significance for me. I recall that Si mentioned that PBPD had reached out to her because the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office was leaning towards not charging the case at all or letting the defendant lead to I misdemeanor charge of solicitation of prostitution. At some point I told that, if PBPD wanted to look into federal charges, I would need more information about the allegations and I encouraged her to set up I meeting. I recall Si telling me that PBPD wanted to give the State Attorney's Office the opportunity to properly charge the case before presenting it for federal investigation and prosecution. In May 2006, I met with Si and PBPD Detective Joe in the 4th Floor Conference Room at the U.S. Attor Office in West Palm Beach. I do not recall whether Si Malone was present. Detective summarized the investigation into state criminal sexual conduct involving Epstein and his personal assistants. Briefly, Epstein, through his personal assistants, recruited girls and young women — mainly from I local high school — to travel to his residence on Palm Beach to perform erotic massages. Although they had no massage training, the 5 I use these terms deliberately. "Girls" refers to females under the age of 18 and "young women" refers to females over the age of 18. When I refer to both groups jointly, I will use the term "females." Page 4 of 58 EFTA00225047 girls and young women were coached to massage Mr. Epstein in various states of undress. The sexual activity varied and included: Mr. Epstein masturbating himself at the end of the massage; having the females masturbate him; Mr. Epstein fondling the females' breasts and genitalia; using sex toys on the females; digital penetration of the females; sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein; and Mr. Epstein observing while one of the girls had sex with one of his assistants. At the end of each "massage" session, Mr. Epstein or one of his assistants would pay the female involved. If the female involved in the massage was brought to Mr. Epstein's residence by I "recruiter," then the "recruiter" also would be paid. Detective did not have any information regarding an of the females traveling interstate or internationally to engage in sexual activity, but Det. reported that Mr. Epstein and his assistants traveled in and out of the Palm Beach International Airport on Epstein's private airplane. Det. stated that flight logs he had seen sometimes referred to passengers as "females," without names or ages, so it was possible that could have been on board, but Det. had not been able to confirm that. Det. stated that I search warrant had been executed on Mr. Epstein's residence and evidence had been seized, including message pads showing calls from females confirming that they would be coming to "work," which was the euphemism used for iving I "massage" — another euphemism for engaging in sexual activity for money. Det. also reported that it had appeared that Mr. Epstein had been "tipped off' about the coming search warrant because all of the computer CPUs had been removed from the residence — the keyboards and screens were still in place, just the CPUs had been taken. Det. also reported that some surveillance cameras were in place but they had only recovered I limited amount of surveillance video. Det. stated that between 20 and 30 females had been identified [NB: I believe that he told me the exact number, I just don't recall that number now]. and Det. asked me whether there were federal criminal charges that could be pursued. I remember getting up from the conference room, walking to my office, and getting my code book and walking back. I looked through 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 (enticement of minors into prostitution/illegal sexual activity) and 2423 (travel for purposes of engaging in illegal sexual conduct).6 We talked through those statutes and the additional investigation that would be required to prove that they had been violated, but I told them that, if the evidence was there, it was I case that could be prosecuted federally. Det. then told me that his boss - PBPD Chief Michael — was still pressing the State Attorney's Office to arrest Epstein. Det. had prepared series of probable cause affidavits for the arrests of Jeffrey Epstein, and Haley Robson, charging I large number of state criminal violations. Chief had asked the Palm Beach County State Attorney, Barry to authorize the arrests and he had refused. According to Det. MI pressure had been brought to bear on SA bilg es attorneys, who included Gu Fronstin and Jack Goldberger twopersonal friends of ), and Alan Dershowitz. Det. stated that he and Chief were concerned that Epstein would be charged only with misdemeanor or perhaps would not be charged at all. 6 As the investigation progressed, I looked into other federal crimes, but at that fi rst meeting, I only remember looking at §§ 2422 and 2423. Page 5 of 58 EFTA00225048  I recommended that we begin the rocess of investigatin er there was I jurisdictional basis for federal charges, and Si and Det. concurred. Det. asked that Chief be given an additional opportunity to convince the State Attorney to charge Epstein.? I explained that opening I case file and beginning I federal investigation would not preclude the State Attorney from charging Epstein. I then prepared the paperwork to open I file. The investigation was dubbed "Operation Leap Year" because there were approximately 29 young women and girls who had been identified through the State investigation. There were several aspects of the case that involved federal interests. First, as to the substantive crimes that Epstein was accused of committing, they involved the victimization of minor females through the use of facilities of interstate commerce (telephones and airports); and Epstein was traveling interstate and internationally to come to the Southern District of Florida to commit those offenses. During the course of the investigation, I often said that, if there were trial, I would tell the jury that Jeffrey Epstein traveled to Florida to use Royal Palm Beach High School as his personal brothel. Second, the removal of the computer equipment from Epstein's home prior to the execution of the search warrant suggested possible public corruption at the Palm Beach County courthouse (where the search warrant application was signed) and also raised the possibility that Epstein may have been involved in the manufacture and/or possession of child pornography. Eradication of child pornography was I particular focus of Project Safe Childhood; its production and storage on computer equipment involved the use of items produced in interstate and foreign commerce; and child pornc ty was often distributed through facilities of interstate and foreign commerce. Third, Det. was suggesting that political or other pressure was being placed on an elected official (the State Attorney) to avoid or minimize criminal exposure for person who committed numerous state crimes related to the exploitation of girls and young women. Setting aside the issue of prostitution, the sexual activity involving girls under the age of 16 could be charged as sex battery in the state. Ignoring those crimes suggested possible public corruption or, at the least] miscarriage of justice. With regard to the logistics of opening the case file, the opening of files in West Palm Beach is relatively informal. In instances where an agent approaches line directly (either because it is duty matter or because the investigation is within the area of expertise), the line will give his or her assistant the details of the case for the LIONS file-opening paperwork and then give I brief oral explanation of the case to his/her supervisor along with the paperwork. If the supervisor agrees that I file shouldal ;vned, he or she will normally sign the LIONS form on the spot and hand the file back to the In this case, I prepared I file jacket; my assistant did the LIONS paperwork; I signed the conflict form; briefed my supervisor, ; and she signed the LIONS paperwork assigning the case to me. This all occurred either on the day of the meeting with Detective and SI or within I few days thereafter. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is the file opening paperwork and file jacket showing that the case was opened in LIONS on May 23, 2006. I do recall that at some time relatively soon after the file was opened, I did something that I had never done before or since. I initiated I meeting with the U.S. Attorney and the First 7 .1111 I did not know it at the time, on May I, 2006, Chief sent I letter to State Attorney asking to consider recusing himself from the case. (Exhibit 1.) Page 6 of 58 EFTA00225049 Assistant, Alex Acosta and Jeff where I traveled to Miami and told them about the case. I recall that I explained the case and how the PBPD believed that Epstein had used political or other pressure to avoid serious punishment in Palm Beach County state court. That possibility troubled me greatly; hence, my request to meet with executive mans ement. Messrs. Acosta and had the same reaction that I had the first time tha told me about Mr. Epstein — if I have never heard of him, how much influence could this person have? I remember specifically saying to them that I expected the case would be time and resource-intensive and I did not want to invest the time and the FBI's resources if the Office would just back down to pressure at the end. Messrs. Acosta and assured me that, if there was sufficient evidence to support the case, Mr. Epstein would be charged appropriately.8 2. Describe in detail your role, and the role of each other person in the USAO, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and elsewhere within the Department of Justice — collectively herein "the government" — who was involved in the assessment of the viability and strength of the federal case against Mr. Epstein and in the decision to negotiate I pre-indictment resolution of the case. My Role I was the line assigned to the case. In conjunction with the case agents, I handled all aspects of the grand jury investigation — deciding what subpoenas to issue; whom to interview; whom to call to testify before the grand jury; what lines of inquiry to pursue to support various legal theories; I conducted legal research to support charges; I reached out to others throughout the Department and the federal government for information on previous investigations of Mr. Epstein, and for legal guidance on various aspects of the case (e.g., OEO, CEOS, SEC, SDNY, and AFMLS); along with the FBI agents and the FBI Victim-Witness Coordinator, I had direct contact with victims via interviews, meetings, and consultations regarding safety/privacy/mental health concerns; and I handled all court proceedings related to the investigation. When I felt that sufficient evidence had been collected to prove Mr. Epstein's guilt beyond I reasonable doubt, I drafted I prosecution memorandum, indictment, and related documents. I revised those documents in response to comments from those in the supervisory chain of command and, as explained below, after additional evidence was secured. I participated in some (but not all) of the meetings between members of the USAO and counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. I prepared briefing materials for management in preparation for those meetings and in response to issues raised during those meetings. Normally the assigned line handles plea negotiations, and I recommended that I enter into negotiations that would result in joint federal and state resolution (i.e.,I plea to federal charges in federal court and I plea to state charges in state court). I was reprimanded for doing so. 8 I do not have I contemporaneous memorandum and cannot find the date of the meeting. In I July 13, 2007 email exchange between myself and Criminal Chief I describe = the meeting as follows: "I summarized the case and the State Attorney's Office's handling of it. I acknowledged that we needed to do work to collect the evidence establishing I federal nexus, and I noted the time and money that would be required for an investigation. I said that I was willing to invest that time and the FBI was willing to invest the money, but I didn't want to get to the end and then have the Office be intimidated by the high-powered lawyers. I was assured that that would not happen." (See Exhibit 3.) Page 7 of 58 EFTA00225050 Thus, as will be discussed in more detail below, I played no role in the decision to enter into I Non-Prosecution Agreement in exchange for Jeffrey Epstein's entry of I guilty plea to I state charge requiring I sentence of 18 months' imprisonment or Epstein's plea to federal charges resulting in I maximum sentence of 18 months' imprisonment (as will be explained below, Epstein's counsel repeatedly changed their minds about whether to take the federal route or the state route). Although I was tasked with drafting the agreements and Information, all of the documents were repeatedly and substantively revised by various supervisors, and I was responsible for incorporating those edits. I also was asked to sign the Non-Prosecution Agreement. When Epstein sought to have the Non-Prosecution Agreement set aside by "appealing" the matter to CEOS, the AAG, and the DAG, I handled the continued investigation of Epstein, including working with the FBI to identify additional victims, issue additional grand jury subpoenas, and prepare an updated indictment package. At the request of the U.S. Attorney, I also responded to inquiries from CEOS, the AAG, and the DAG's Office and drafted submissions on behalf of the USAO in response to arguments raised by Epstein's attorneys. I believe that I prepared I first draft of the Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement, but others took the laboring oar on that document. I drafted numerous victim notification letters and responded to defense objections to those letters. I drafted the letter to the Special Master with the USAO's recommendations for the qualities to look for in the attorney representative for the victims. I monitored Epstein's compliance with the Non-Prosecution Agreement and served several breach notices. U.S. Attorney's Office Personnel (now retired): was my direct supervisor. She reviewed indictment packages and other court-related matters and provided guidance and served as I "sounding board" for many of my concerns. As will be explained below, did not participate in many of the meetings between the USAO and Epstein's counsel because Epstein's counsel "skipped her" in the chain of command, directing their communications to MAUSA9 , Criminal Chief First Assistant Jeff and U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. did participate in meetings with the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office about Epstein's work release and several conference calls with defendant attorney Roy Black and others about Epstein's breaches of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. MAUSA (now in private practice): MAUSA was my second- line supervisor and head of the West Palm Beach office. Over the objection of myself and my co-counsel, he granted the request of Epstein's attorneys to meet to allow Epstein's attorneys to argue that the USAO should decline the matter. That began the series of meetings between all levels of the USAO and Epstein's counsel. MAUSA reviewed my work; asked me to conduct some specific research; and reviewed drafts of our responses to legal arguments raised by Epstein's counsel. MAUSA also participated in 9 The Managing Assistant U.S. Attorney ("MAUSA") is the head of the West Palm Beach Office. Page 8 of 58 EFTA00225051 conversations with the State Attorney, and directly participated in negotiations of the language to be used in the Non-Prosecution Agreement, federal Plea Agreement, and Information. He had numerous conversations with counsel for Epstein outside of my presence when they objected to my refusal to agree with their changes. MAUSA also communicated with the U.S. Attorney about the negotiations. He would then communicate changes from the defense and the U.S. Attorney to me to incorporate. Later, when E stein's attorneys appealed to AAa., Mr. was on detail as AAG Chief of Staff and facilitated the meeting between Epstein's counsel and the AAG. AAG Fisher's written response was issued while MAUSA was still her Chief of Staff. I do not know who drafted the written response. Acting MAUSA (still with the USAO): When MAUSA was on detail with AAG Fisher's Office, was named the Acting MAUSA. He participated in at least one meeting with Epstein's attorneys and the State Attorney. Mr. also was involved in some of the negotiations regarding the language of the Non- Prosecution Agreement. He later reviewed at least one of the iterations of the indictment package and signed the indictment that was supposed to be presented to the grand July in June 2009. Criminal Chief Matthew (now in private practice): Criminal Chief - was the third line supervisor of the matter. Generally, West Palm Beach indictments are reviewed and approved by the MAUSA and are not reviewed by Miami. However, unusual or especially significant indictments are reviewed by the Criminal Chief. Criminal Chief reviewed and commented on the first proposed indictment package. His comments were incorporated into I revised indictment, and he possibly reviewed those changes. Criminal Chief participated in numerous meetings on the case, and had private conversations regarding resolution of the matter with Lilly counsel to Mr. Epstein. Ms. had formerly served as Deputy Chief in the Major Crimes Section at the USAO while Mr. was Chief of Major Crimes. As discussed below, on July 26, 2007, Criminal Chief announced to the investigative team that U.S. Attorney Acosta had decided to offer I two-year plea to Mr. Epstein. On August 3, 2007, Mr. sent I letter to Ms. regarding that plea offer. Mr. left the U.S. Attorney's Office on that date to become partner at Kobre & Kim in New York. First Assistant Jeffrey (now in private practice): FAUSA (later U.S. Attorney was involved in telephone calls and meetings with counsel for Mr. Epstein; when Epstein's attorneys were dissatisfied with my proposed language for the Non-Prosecution Agreement, victim notification letters, letters to the Special Master, etc., they would frequently contact FAUSA directly to complain. FAUSA handled the bulk of the negotiations of the Addendum to the NPA. Epstein's attorneys later complained that FAUSA was biased because his daughter had been the victim of I crime. One of Epstein's attorneys also falsely accused FAUSA (and me) of promising money to l victim in exchange for her willingness to accuse Epstein. Page 9 of 58 EFTA00225052 U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta (now Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor): USA Acosta served as the head of the U.S. Attorney's Office throughout the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, including the decision to enter into I Non-Prosecution Agreement, negotiation of its terms, and attempts to enforce its terms. When Epstein's attorneys were dissatisfied with answers they received from me, MAUSA M, and FAUSA they would frequently contact USA Acosta directly. USA Acosta was directly involved in reviewing and revising the documents, including sending exact wording that he wanted incorporated into the agreement. There were some communications between USA Acosta and counsel for Epstein that I was not aware of at the time. For example, I did not know, until after I had sent I breach notice, that USA Acosta agreed that Epstein could be considered for work release. At some point after the NPA was signed, USA Acosta was recused from the Epstein matter. (still at USAO): Early in the investigation, I asked if he would serve as co-counsel on the case. Before I joined the West Palm Beach Office, had handled the bulk of the child exploitation cases in West Palm Beach. He and I discussed how to structure the investigation and he joined me in opposing meeting with Epstein's attorneys prior to the completion of the investigation. He attended some of the meetings with Epstein's attorneys. When the Office overruled our positions and when it appeared that the case was not going to be charged, decided that he should focus on other cases. (now U.S. Magistrate Judge): as my office neighbor and colleague. At one point early in the investigation (I be ievebefore I asked to serve as co-counsel), I sought counsel on strategies for how to handle Epstein's personal assistants — whether they should be charged or if we should seek immunity for them. Not long thereafter, came to me and said that he was best friends with one of Epstein's attorneys, Jack Goldberger, and accordingly could not discuss the Epstein case with me any further. left the U.S. Attorney's Office for private practice and later represented one of Epstein's assistants in the civil suits filed by Epstein's victims. ow retired): Asset Forfeiture assigned to the Epstein case. I had I ewbrief meetings with to talk about the asset forfeiture aspects of the case. We discussed the char es under consideration and Epstein's assets that could be subject to forfeiture. ad direct contact with the agents and the FBI's asset forfeiture coordinator about information/evidence that she needed to pursue forfeiture. provided the asset forfeiture language in the proposed indictments. ill at USAO): SLC was not directly involved in the Epstein investigation or negotiation of the NPA, but he has been lead counsel in the Jane Doe I United States litigation. SLC IN had contact with USA Acosta regarding his recusal, and Page 10 of 58 EFTA00225053  with FAUSA and myself regarding self-reports to OPR about accusations of misconduct raised by Epstein's counsel. I also had contact with SLC regarding Florida Bar Complaint filed by I civil attorney for some of the victims who complained that my victim notification letters amounted to inappropriate business referrals to the attorney selected by the Special Master. lo Appellate SLC (still at USAO): SLC was not directly involved in the Epstein investigation or negotiation of the NPA. It is my understanding that USA Acosta asked SLC to check my legal analysis. I also understand that Criminal Chief contacted SLC about moving me to Appeals after I pointed out actions that I considered to be in violation of the Ashcroft memo and victims' rights legislation. I also understand that SLC ma have knowled e of USA Acosta providing my prosecution memorandum to Main Justice. (still at USAO): My legal assistant during most of the Epstein investigation and its aftermath. She assisted with preparing indictment packages, victim notification letters, grand jury subpoenas, travel, expert witness contracts, and other items. la still at USAO): Executive assistants to Acosta and FAUSA . They compiled correspondence between the USAO and counsel for Epstein; scheduled meetings; and dealt with inquiries from the press and DOJ. They may have information related to correspondence or communications between the Executive Division and Epstein's counsel that I am unaware of. FBI Personnel (retired from FBI): Lead case agent on Operation Leap Year. She presented the case to the USAO, handled the bulk of the interviews, served subpoenas, and testified before the grand jury. She communicated directly with victims and hand- delivered the original victim notification letters. SI also participated in meetings with some of the members of the USAO and counsel for Epstein. SI Jason (still at FBI): Co-case agent with . Became lead case agent during the post-guilty plea period (i.e., the interview of responding to FOIA requests, etc.). He conducted interviews, prepared reports, analyzed 1° The Florida Bar determined that my victim notification letters, which are included in the exhibits and advised the victims that they had the absolute right to select another attorney if they so desired, were not inappropriate solicitations and did not violate the Florida Bar Rules. The attorney who filed the complaint, Jeff Herman, later resigned from the Florida Bar due to disciplinary action taken against him. Page 11 of 58 EFTA00225054 records, and communicated directly with victims. Si also participated in meetings with some of the members of the USAO and counsel for Epstein. ill at FBI): Co-case agent with SI until he was transferred to DC. He conducted interviews, including the original telephone interview with where she asked that the FBI have no further contact with her. He S/As andliiiso He also participated in meetings with some of the members of the USAO and counsel for Epstein. She attended the July 26, 2007 meeting where Criminal Chief announced the two-year plea offer. SI Christina : participated in the interview of in Australia. Sr't (still at FBI): =imbiner was the case agent on Operation Stolen Globe, which involved the investigation of Alfredo Rodriguez (Jeffrey Epstein's butler), who tried to sell evidence to Brad Edwards. Supervisor etired from FBI): replaced GS s hea ng the post-guilty plea period. He supervised S/As Victim-Witness Coordinator : Ms. sent letters to victims, met with them in person, and assisted in finding counseling and other services for them. Justice Department Personnel CEOS Deputy Chief Alexandra (still at DOJ): Ms. was part of the team that reviewed the case and the NPA when Epstein "appealed" to DOJ. Ms. also is familiar with my work from I prior case that she and I worked on together as well as other PSC cases where I have consulted with her. CEOS Chief Drew (now private in-house counsel): Mr. reviewed and opined on the case and the NPA when Epstein "appealed" to DOJ. He also attended meetings in the SDFL with myself, the case agents, USAO supervisory staff, and counsel for Epstein. I conferred with Mr. about charging, staffing, and victim- related issues. Page 12 of 58 EFTA00225055  CEOS Trial Attorney (now at I non-profit): I first had contact with Ms. when conducting research regarding some of the legal issues raised by the case (she was the CEOS Duty Attorney on the day that I called). After left the case, I contacted Mr. about having I CEOS Trial Attorney co-chair the case and asked if Ms. was available. She participated in interviews, discussed case strategy, and reviewed pros memos and indictments. Millina that USA Acosta provided my pros memo to Chiel At various times, I have heard and asked her to review my legal analysis. I have never asked Chief whether this actually occurred. SLC may know whether this occurred. ERMINIIIPINit (now in private practice): After CEOS rejected the "appeal" from Mr. Epstein's attorneys, they asked for further review by She met with the attorneys and prepared I written opinion rejecting Epstein's arguments. Associate De utv Attorney General Snow private in-house counsel): Following Epstein's attorneys asked for review by the DAG. I do not know whether Epstein's counsel met with the DAG, but they did present arguments to Mr. Roth, who was Chief of Staff/Sr. Associate Deputy Attorney General. It vrote letter rejecting Epstein's arguments. (now in private practice): -was the Deputy Attorney General to whom Mr. Epstein's arguments were addressed. As noted above, I do not know if met with Epstein's counsel, or if the meetings were only held with Mr. Roth. Others Whose Counsel I Sought During the Case: till in Seattle): was not an involved in the Epstein investigation. During the pendency of the Epstein investigation, she began investigating David Copperfield, who was I friend of Epstein, and we conferred with each other about strategy. I informed linof the difficulties in convincing the Office to prosecute Epstein. is I friend from my days at orseyWhitney. e join e usticeDepartment e ore I did and we have stayed in contact over the years. She had experience with USA Acosta when he was the head of the Civil Rights Section at Main Justice so I turned to her for advice in handling the Epstein situation. Assistant U.S. Attorney S. (still at DOJ): Mr. and I were dating at the time of the Epstein investigation. (We are now married.) He was I more who Page 13 of 58 EFTA00225056  was familiar with some of Epstein's counsel. I sought his advice on some of the issues — legal and non-legal — that arose during the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney (still at the USAO): Ms. and I are friends from my time in Miami. She was' supervisor in Miami although not in my chain of command. I would often speak or email with her just for advice. 3. Explain fully the process and circumstances leading to the decision to resolve the case through I non-prosecution a reement (sometimes referred to by defense counsel and the government as I deferred prosecution agreement, but described herein as the non-prosecution agreement). Ex lain why the government initially prepared to resolve the case through federal plea agreement, but ultimately did not require Mr. Epstein to enter plea in federal court. The explanation should identify the parties involved in the decision, the individual(s) responsible for all final decisions regarding the non-prosecution agreement and its terms, and the basis for the decision to resolve the case through non-prosecution agreement. I Let me preface with some background on how I normally handle investigations and prosecutions. When undertaking investigations, my normal practice is to meet with agents, confer with them about an investigative plan, and work together until the case is ready for indictment. I update my supervisors along the way, seek advice or guidance from supervisors and colleagues if an issue is especially complex or novel, and get approval for actions as required by the USAM, but I have always focused on learning as much as possible about the subject area, the defendant, and the facts related to the alleged crime — I want to be the subject matter expert in the courtroom. Then, once all of those items are completed, I prepare I comprehensive prosecution memo and proposed indictment, which are submitted for review. I believe strongly that investigations — especially child exploitation investigations - should be conducted as covertly as possible in order to protect the victims' privacy; to avoid harm to the accused's reputation if the accusation is determined to be false; and to maintain the sanctity of the investigation. In Mr. Epstein's case, these concerns were heightened for several reasons. First, victims identified during the state investigation had expressed fears of Epstein and building trust with them would require assurances that Epstein would not find out that they were talking with federal investigators. Second, the victims were between the ages of approximately 15 and 20" -- ages when women and girls might minimize or deny sexual abuse to avoid being labeled as "skits." Third, Epstein had made allegations in the state case that the victims were only after money and that investigators were only after fame. Maintaining the investigation's confidentiality would delegitimiz

EFTA00162566.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 15 pages

(Rev. 01.31.2003) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Precedence: ROUTINE Date: 03/12/2007 To: Miami From: Miami PB2/PBCRA Contact: SA Approved By: Drafted By:' Case ID #: 31E-MM-108062 (Pending) Title: JEFFREY EPSTEIN; GHISLAINE N. MAXWELL WSTA - CHILD PROSTITUTION Synopsis: To remove writer as co-case agent. Details: Due to writer's transfer from the Miami Division, PBCRA, to FBIHQ, effective March 16, 2007,. it is requested that writer be removed as co-case agent. •• 001i15k to' 4s e/D ..eall 47 -/t/ ovIrs of. a Apte ri EFTA00162566 FD-302(Rev. I0-6-95) -1- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Dateoftmmcripfion 01/23/2007 ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ was interviewed in the town of 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, RODRIGUEZ provided the following information: RODRIGUEZ was employed as a Chauffeur/Butler/House Manager for JEFFREY EPSTEIN at EPSTEIN's residence, 358 Embrillo Street, Palm Beach, Florida, in August or September 2004. RODRIGUEZ worked for EPSTEIN for approximately six months. RODRIGUEZ stated that when EPSTEIN was in town he was an early riser. RODRIGUEZ was expected to be available at all times, seeing to EPSTEIN's needs and the needs of EPSTEIN's guest. When EPSTEIN hired RODRIGUEZ, EPSTEIN told RODRIGUEZ that he had many girlfriends and that he must be discreet. RODRIGUEZ's salary and the chef's, DAVID Last Name Unknown(LNU) salary were paid from the New York Office. RODRIGUEZ hired LNU, the cleaning lady. RODRIGUEZ was responsible for paying LNU and the gardener, Jerome LNU. When EPSTEIN would come to town, RODRIGUEZ was to have $8000.00 cash, and $8000.00 in a checking account. RODRIGUEZ had a visa in his name with a $3000.00 credit line. The credit'card and checking account were both with Colonial Bank. Another responsibility of RODRIGUEZ was to keep $200.00 - $300.00 in each vehicle. He described himself as a human ATM. Also prior to EPSTEIN's arrival to the residence, RODRIGUEZ was to take $100.00 bills and fan them out on a table near EPSTEIN's bed located upstairs in EPSTEIN's master bedroom. RODRIGUEZ was also to place a gun between EPSTEIN's mattress in a holster that was always positioned between the mattresses. Once EPSTEIN departed the residence, RODRIGUEZ would return the weapon to the safe. RODRIGUEZ stated that there was a manual written by an employee of EPSTEIN on the duties and responsibilities of each of EPSTEIN's residences. According to RODRIGUEZ, was EPSTEIN's personal assistant. She would travel everywhere with EPSTEIN. RODRIGUEZ was not allowed to address EPSTEIN directly. RODRIGUEZ would either have to contact LESLIE LNU located out of the New York Office or speak with regarding matters that concerned Investigation on 01/18/2007 at Palm Beach, Florida File0 3 108062 . Date dictated 01/18/2007 by •t y R. Slater This docu ins 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. EFTA00162567 • FD-302a (Rev. 10495) • • 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 of Alfredo Rodriguez ,On 01/18/2007 ,Page 2 EPSTEIN. RODRIGUEZ liked but said that he felt like she had a hard rt in life. RODRIGUEZ said that Christmas time was hard for an she was not fond of that time of yea RODRIGUEZ compared a female companion of EPSTEIN, LNU. RODRIGUEZ thought could show a "mean" side, but LNU, a "Polish girl" was more naive. , RODRIGUEZ said that EPSTEIN was trying to make LNU more sophisticated. RODRIGUEZ stated that there were many females that would come to the residence. A lot of the females that traveled with EPSTEIN looked European or Foreign. RODRIGUEZ stated that the local girls who visited the residence appeared to be younger than those that EPSTEIN traveled with. RODRIGUEZ was not sure of the local girls' ages. When asked by the interviewing agent if they were under eighteen, RODRIGUEZ stated that he delivered flowers to a girl at Royal Palm Beach High School and that some of the girls had car pooled together. The interviewing agent inquired of RODRIGUEZ if that meant he believed some of the girls were underage. RODRIGUEZ nodded his head, affirming that he believed some of the girls were under the age of eighteen. RODRIGUEZ stated that EPSTEIN had directed him to purchase roses for a local female, RODRIGUEZ was unable to remember her name. The Unidentified Female(UF) was appearing in a high school drama play. RODRIGUEZ purchased the roses from Extra Touch Flowers and delivered them to Royal Palm Beach High School. RODRIGUEZ also took the same UF to her residence two or three times. RODRIGUEZ said that under EPSTEIN's instruction, RODRIGUEZ had also rented a vehicle for the UF. He said it was a Dodge Neon. RODRIGUEZ stated that he recalled one female that traveled with EPSTEIN that looked very young. He believed her name was (sp) LNU and that she was from California. RODRIGUEZ remembered her only staying at the residence on that one occasion. LNU enjoyed flying, so RODRIGUEZ was instructed by EPSTEIN to to e LNU to get a flying lesson. RODRIGUEZ took LNU to an airport in LANTANA, Florida. He believed her full name may be found on documents that were filled out prior to LNU receiving the lesson. RODRIGUEZ said that EPSTEIN overall was a very private individual. RODRIGUEZ said that EPSTEIN would get massages everyday, sometimes morning and night. RODRIGUEZ was asked on occasion by to pay the girls for the massage they had provided to EPSTEIN. He' would pay $300.00 or $400.00 dollars from EFTA00162568 FD-302a (Rev. 10-6-95) • 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 of Alfredo Rodriguez ,On 01/18/2007 ,Pate 3 his petty cash. RODRIGUiliiicifically remembered paying a masseuse by the name of LNU. RODRIGUEZ stated that he did not go upstairs while the girls performed massages on EPSTEIN. Afterwards though, he would go upstairs and clean up. RODRIGUEZ wiped down vibrators used during the massage and would put them away. He would also throw tissues in the trash and take towels to be laundered. On more than one occasion, RODRIGUEZ recalled seeing used condoms. RODRIGUEZ said that he would wear gloves when cleaning up after a massage. RODRIGUEZ did not witness any sexual activity between the females and EPSTEIN. When asked by the interviewing agent if RODRIGUEZ had ever purchased any sex toys for EPSTEIN, RODRIGUEZ stated that he believed had purchased sex toys, but that he had not. According to RODRIGUEZ, other than receiving massages, EPSTEIN enjoyed getting ice cream from a local ice cream parlor with the girls. Under EPSTEIN's direction, RODRIGUEZ and sometimes would take the girls shopping. If EPSTEIN accompanied them e would stay in the vehicle. The girls would shop, find something they liked, place the items on hold, and later RODRIGUEZ would purchase the items. RODRIGUEZ also had traveled to the Wellington Mall where he bought other gifts for the girls, i.e. Ipods or MP3 players. RODRIGUEZ stated that on occasion, EPSTEIN would allow some of the girls to drive one of his vehicles. RODRIGUEZ stated that he had taken messages from females calling regarding providing massages to EPSTEIN. He also stated that an older female possibly in her thirties, named LNU, would call the residence. She would tell RODRIGUEZ till'IllISTEIN know that she had females for him. RODRIGUEZ could provide no other information about LNU. RODRIGUEZ said that GHISLAINE MAXWELL traveled to the residence with EPSTEIN on occasion. RODRIGUEZ believed MAXWELL to be EPSTEIN's girlfriend, at first. However, when other females accompanied EPSTEIN, MAXWELL would take another bedroom in the residence. RODRIGUEZ said that he thought MAXWELL also would try to find females for EPSTEIN. On one occasion, MAXWELL told RODRIGUEZ that there was $30,000.00 in the safe and that was her money. RODRIGUEZ said that the only male visitor he could recall accompanying EPSTEIN to the residence was JEAN LUC LNU. RODRIGUEZ believed JEAN LUC LNU owned a modeling agency possibly named KARINA EFTA00162569  • A: FD-302a (Rev. 10+95) • 31E-MM-108062 Continuation ofFD-302 of Alfredo Rodriguez ,on 01/18/2007 ,Page 4 MODELS. RODRIGUEZ stated that he believed EPSTEIN wanted to be the center of attention with his female companions. RODRIGUEZ told the interviewing agents that on one occasion, RODRIGUEZ was preparing several of the females something to eat in the kitchen. The females were laughing and appeared to be having a good time. EPSTEIN entered the kitchen and asked the females to join him in the other room. RODRIGUEZ said that he believed EPSTEIN was jealous. RODRIGUEZ also stated that he believed many of EPSTEIN's female companions were looking to make something of themselves and were seeking EPSTEIN's assistance. RODRIGUEZ stated that he believed, in reality, they were accomplishing nothing. EFTA00162570 FD-302 (Rev. 10-6-95) • • -I- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION' Date of transcription 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, FUCHS & BERTISCH, P.A. and Assistant United States Attorney of the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. After being 111111111if the identity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, BANASIAK provided the following information: JANUSZ BANASIAK was born in Poland and arrived in the United States in 1990. BANASIAK stated that he became a U.S. citizen in 1994-95. He applied for many jobs via the internet. 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 Gulfstream 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 sometimes 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 rimarily traveled to Palm Beach with , and a Chef, currently LANCE CALLOWAY. BANASIAK li l t at t e C of prior to CALLOWAY was DAVID LNU. BANASIAK said that the Chef would stay in the Guest House with him. and Investigation on at West Palm Beach, Florida File N 3 Date dictated 02/02/2007 by S t y R. S ater 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. Sic- m ri% g?-1 -76 EFTA00162571 FD-302a (Rev. 10.6-95) • • 31E-MM-108062 Continuation ofFD-302 of Janusz BANASIAK ,On 02/02/2007 Mtge 2 would stay upstairs in the main house. According to BANASIAK, the main house has six bedrooms and the Guest House has three bedrooms. Another individual that would come on a regular basis to the residence was . BANASIAK believed that was no longer employed by EPSTEIN. EPSTEIN would, on occasion, ring 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 the 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 the vehicle. On another occasion BANASIAK delivered a gift bag to LNG. BANASIAK said he took the gift to a trailer park loctilli off of Haverhill. 1 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. EFTA00162572 FD-302a (Rev. 10495) • • 31E-MM-108062 OmtinuaticedM-M2d Janusz BANASIAK .On 02/02/2007 Page 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 or 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 JE $500.00 - Per EPSTEIN, told BANASIAK to pay Last Name Unknown(LNU). Neither EPSTEIN nor were present when LNU picked up the money. 14) 3/14/2004 $400.00 Cash for Alexandria called and asked BANASIAK to pay ALEXANDRIA LNU the money. 7) 3/15/2005 Alexandria $300.00 Cash req. by JE - EPSTEIN asked BANASIAK for cash to pay ALEXANDRIA LNU. 4) 3/30/2005 Beverly $200.00 Cash req. by JE - EPSTEIN asked BANASIAK for cash to pay BEVERLY LNU. 25) 4/20/2005 iiiiii 00 Cash req. by JE - EPSTEIN asked BANASIAK for cash to pay LNU. 1) 5/7/2005 11111111 $200.00 Cash - BANASIAK said that probably ca led requesting him to pay LNU. 17) 6/13/2005 $300.00 Cash - EPSTEIN or requested BANASIAK to pay LNU. 17) 6/20/2005 100.00 Cash - EPSTEIN or requested BANASIAK to pay LNU. EFTA00162573 FD-302a (Rev. 10-6-95) 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 of Janusz BANASIAK ,On 02/02/2007 .Page 4 40) 6/26/2005 Down $200.00Lash req. by GM - BANASIAK stated that the name should have been MI and GHISLAINE MAXWELL requested that he pay LNU. 4) 9/26/2005 2S,2",20 Cash EPSTEIN or requested BANASIAK to pay LNU. 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 MI - see next entry. 17) 3/19/2006 Babies R us $15.97 Toys for - cording to BANASIAK, called and asked BANASIAK to buy LNU a baby gift. told BANASIAK that she would let him know 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 ified amounts of monies kept in vehidles at all time. LNU 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) thr e weeks before the execution of the State search warrant and PAUL LNU came to the residence and removed all but one of the computer towers. EFTA00162574 FD-302 (Rev. 10.6.95) -1- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transaiption 01/22/2007 Janusz Banasiak, date of birth 04/07/1953, Social Security Account Number (SSAN) 096-64-8809, residing at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida was contacted at his residence. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, Banasiak provided the following information: Banasiak is a naturalized United States Citizen of Polish decent. Banasiak has been employed by Jeffery Epstein since approximately February 2005. Banasiak was hired by Epstein through an employment agency in Maryland. Banasiak's primary responsibility is the "house manager" for Epstein's residence in Palm Beach, Florida. His duties include, shopping for groceries, flowers, driver and managing cleaning/lawn care personnel. Prior to the arrival of Epstein, Banasiak would usually receive a call from Sara , Epstein's assistant, one day in advance with Epstein's "RI itinerary. In turn, Banasiak would travel to Carmines, a grocery store on PGA Boulevard, Just Flowers for floral arrangements, and to the Palm Beach county airport to pick-up Epstein and guests. Banasiak identified LNU, and LNU as Epstein's assistants. Banasiakillid !Pa female glillitived at the residence, the door bell rings in the guest house. Upon greeting the guest, he would notify IIIIII someone was here to see Mr. Epstein. Banasiak believed some UT—EEZ girls were at the residence to provide Epstein with a massage. Banasiak remembered between 10-15 different local girls arriving at the residence. Banasiak recalled some girls were more frequent guests than others. One girl Banasiak identified from memory was LNU. The girls would stay at the residence between approximately 45-60 minutes. He recalled paying one of the girls for Epstein from his petty cash fund. Banasiak documented every purchase or transaction he made for Epstein. Banasiak stated he had current copies of his expenses reports filed in his desk drawer. When asked to produce those records, Banasiak wanted to speak to his attorney before releasing the documents. Banasiak contacted Michael Salnick, Law Offices of Salnick, Fuchs & Bertisch, P.A., telephone number 250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1203, West Palmi ll,1411111a. Investigation on 01/11/2007. at Palm Beach, Florida 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. L3 / E - 4 Al troGa - 77 EFTA00162575 FD-302a (Rev. 10-6.95) • • 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 of • ,On 01/11/2007 ,Page 2 After a brief telephone conversation with Salnick, Banasiak stated Salnick would like to speak with one of the agents. SA Slater spoke briefly with Salnick and explained the nature of visit. Salnick agreed that Banasiak would voluntarily place the documents/reports in a sealed envelope and be escorted to Salnick's office. Voluntarily, Banasiak and the agents drove with the captioned records to Salnick's office. The envelope was hand delivered by Banasiak to Salnick for the purpose of preserving the records. EFTA00162576 To: Criminal Inve gative From: Miami Re: 31E-MM-108062, 05/02/2007 LEAD(s): Set Lead 1: (Action) CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE AT WASHINGTON, DC Approval request for the travel of SSA to Miami Division, PBCRA from 05/09/2007 to 05/18/2007 for the purpose of assisting with indictment preparation, document preparation, chart finalization and to provide testimony at detention hearing. •• 2 EFTA00162577  • X FD-302 (Rev. 10-6-95) • • -1- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 01 / 0/2 007 ANTHONY LUIS ZAC FIGUEROA was interviewed 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, FIGUEROA provided the following information: FIGUEROA first met JEFFREY EPSTEIN through his girlfriend, , date of birth 08/09/1982 or 1983. FIGUEROA and dated prior to both of them dropping out of school. left school first and FIGUEROA stopped attending Royal Palm Beach High School around his 10th grade year. They began dating a ain when, through a mutual friend, they ran into each other. had not yet turned eighteen and FIGUEROA believed it may have been in the month of May. was residing at HIDDEN HARBOR, an apartment complex located in Royal Palm Beach, North of Okeechobee Boulevard on the left side of the street. FIGUEROA moved in with approximately one month later. FIGUEROA stated that EPSTEIN paid the rent for the apartment. FIGUEROA believed the rent was between $980.00 - $1200.00. , who had no other job, was EPSTEIN's Personal Assistant. FIGUEROA stated provided massages to EPSTEIN. was also to locate additional females to perform massages for EPSTEIN. According to FIGUEROA, traveled with EPSTEIN accompanying him on trips frequently. FIGUEROA stated that had just returned from a trip with EPSTEIN when he and reunited. FIGUEROA believed was with EPSTEIN in New York or at EPSTEIN's island. When asked by the interviewing agent if was sexual involved with EPSTEIN, FIGUEROA stated he never asked her, but that he was not stupid. FIGUEROA continued stating, "if your girlfriend was suckin another man's dick would you want to know." FIGUEROA said that was paid well and they both benefitted from the money EPSTEIN was paying . FIGUEROA stated that he transported females to the EPSTEIN residence so they could provide EPSTEIN with a massage. FIGUEROA would be paid $200.00 by EPSTEIN for driving or bringing females to the EPSTEIN residence. He drove a red Dodge Dakota or sometimes he used a white Pontiac Grand AM to transport the females. On occasion, FIGUEROA had friends that would drive with him. FIGUEROA also found other females to perform massages for Invest 01/10/2007 at West Palm Beach, Florida File H -108062 Date dictated 01/10/2007 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 pot to be distributed outside your agency. 310 rt 0(p? --ICI EFTA00162578 FD-302a(Rev. • • 31E-MM-108062 OmtimmOondM0.302of Anthony Luis Zac FIGUEROA ,on 01/10/2007 ,Page 2 EPSTEIN. FIGUEROA said they would find females at different laces: the mall, the clubs or the schools. FIGUEROA said that LNU(area code 212) or GHISALINE MAXWELL would also call and as im to pick up a specific girl and bring them to EPSTEIN's residence. FIGUEROA believed MAXWELL was EPSTEIN's wife at first, but he knows now that was not the case. FIGUEROA stated that when he was at the EPSTEIN's residence, while waiting for a female, he would, on occasion, see EPSTEIN's chef. FIGUEROA described him as a Spanish guy with dark hair. FIGUEROA said that sometimes after he had taken the females to EPSTEIN's residence, he would not receive the $200.00 fee from EPSTEIN. FIGUEROA explained stating that the females would either go on their own or they would bring a new female. FIGUEROA could only remember the names of two girls, LNU and LNU, that he had taken to EPSTEIN's residence. en asked b !PI interviewing agent if he recalled someone by the name of , he stated that she had attended Royal Palm Beach High School and she was another one of the females woriiiiifor EPSTEIN. He said that he and-had recruited LNU to work for EPSTEIN. FIGUEROA said that when was twenty EPSTEIN paid for her to travel to Thailand to a!'"Al i school specializing in massages. FIGUEROA.said after was there for a month, he received a letter from t at s e would not be returning and that the were over as a couple. FIGUEROA has not seen nor heard from since that time. FIGUEROA stated that he still has her dog. FIGUEROA also went on to say that he has a $3000.00 telephone bill that his parents had to pay. told FIGUEROA that she would take care of phone bill upon her return from Thailand. FIGUEROA had not worried about the bill because of association with EPSTEIN. FIGUEROA said that he would like to reimburse his parents. FIGUEROA eventuall stopped working for EPSTEIN mainly due to the fact that did not return from Thailand. FIGUEROA said that EPSTEIN would call and inquire about whereabouts and if he had heard from . FIGUEROA 1111111d that EPSTEIN knew where was because he was the one responsible for sending her to Thailand. FIGUEROA stated that he had loved IIIIIII and that he and EPSTEIN had argued about not returning. EFTA00162579  . -L FD•302a (Rev. 10-6-95) • • 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD•302 of Anthony Luis Zac FIGUEROA .0n01/10/2007 .Page _a_ FIGUEROA said that EPSTEIN told him to make sure the females the he brought to him were eighteen. FIGUEROA said he was the driver and working for EPSTEIN was an easy way to make $200.00 for 30-45 minutes work. FIGUEROA said that he had never been upstairs in EPSTEIN's residence. FIGUEROA has also never traveled with EPSTEIN. FIGUEROA said that EPSTEIN had given him $500.00 in cash to help pay off car tickets. EFTA00162580

EFTA00229756.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 5 pages

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Notice of Appeal From Magistrate's Order Denying Pre-Trial Detention Comes now the United States of America, by and through its undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, and files this Notice of Appeal from the Order of United States Magistrate Judge U.S. District Court for the District of , entered on April , 2008, which denied the United States' request for pre-trial detention as to defendant Jeffrey Epstein. United States Magistrate Judge set a $ cash bond, with the following conditions: . The United States gave notice of its intent to appeal the bond order and asked the Magistrate Judge to stay execution of the bond pending the Court's determination of this appeal. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion and the defendant remains in custody. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a), if "a person is ordered released by a magistrate judge, or by a person other than a judge of a court having original jurisdiction over the offense . . . the attorney for the Government may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation of the order or amendment of the conditions of release." Accordingly, the United States hereby files this emergency motion with the District Judge assigned to the case for immediate revocation of the Magistrate Judge's Order. THE CHARGES IN THE INDICTMENT On April , 2008, a Grand Jury sitting in the Southern District of Florida returned a twenty-nine-count indictment charging defendant Jeffrey Epstein a with one count of conspiracy to use a means of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, or entice nineteen minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; eight counts of knowingly, in and affecting commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining eight minors to engage in commercial sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1); twelve substantive counts of using a means of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, or entice twelve minors to engage in prostitution or other criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b); one count of conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(e); and four counts of traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with a person under 18 years of age, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). Jane Does #1 through #19 were all minors at the time EFTA00229756 of their involvement with defendant Epstein. Jane Doe #11 was a resident of New York; the remaining Jane Does were all residents of Palm Beach County, Florida, at the time of their involvement with defendant Epstein. Count 1 carries a statutory maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment. Counts 2 through 10 each carry a statutory maximum sentence of forty years' imprisonment. Counts 11 through 23 each carry a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of five years' imprisonment up to a maximum of thirty years' imprisonment. Counts 24 and 26 through 29 each carry a maximum of thirty years' imprisonment. THE FACTS OF THE OFFENSE 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, M., n from Royal Palm Beach. When and another girl began arguing at school because the other girl accused of being a M. M. prostitute, one of the school principals intervened. The principal searched M.'s purse and found $300 cash. The principal asked . where the money came from. Saige initially claimed that she earned the money working at "Chik-Fil-A," which no one believed. Saige then claimed that she made the money selling drugs; no one believed that either. Saige finally admitted that she had been paid $300 to give a massage to a man on Palm Beach Island. Saige's parents approached the Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD") about pressing charges. PBPD began 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. 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 EFTA00229757 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 , and . The search also recovered numerous photos of Epstein sitting 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 school 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 M —in 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 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. The State of Florida has since dismissed its charges after the United States initiated prosecution. ARGUMENT The defendant was arrested in the Northern District of Texas and, today, had a bond hearing. The United States sought to have the defendant detained pending trial based upon the presumption of detention as well as the defendant's risk of flight and danger to the community. EFTA00229758  This is a case where detention is presumed, both as to risk of flight and as a danger to the community. The law regarding this presumption is as follows: Where the Court finds probable cause to believe that the defendant committed one of the offenses listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), [which includes the violations of 18 USC 2242 and 2243 as charged by the grand jury] a a statutory rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community. Assuring a criminal defendant's appearance at trial is a legitimate government objective. Detaining adults who prey on children for the adult's sexual gratification or for the production of child pornography is also a legitimate government objective. One of the fundamental duties of government is public safety, including protecting children from sexual predators. . . . Once it is determined that the presumption applies, the defendant bears a limited burden of production to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight. Once a defendant has met his burden of production relating to these two factors, the presumption favoring detention does not disappear entirely, but remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court. United States v. Abad , 350 F.3d 793, 797 (8th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted). In determining how much weight to accord the presumption after the defendant has come forward to meet his burden of production, the Second Circuit explains: A judicial officer conducting a detention hearing should, even after a defendant has come forward with rebuttal evidence, continue to give the presumption of flight some weight by keeping in mind that Congress has found that these offenders [who fall within the presumption] pose special risks of flight, and that "a strong probability arises" that no form of conditional release will be adequate to secure their appearance. The judge of magistrate thus should consider those legislative findings among the other factors to be weighed in deciding whether a defendant should be detained. United States v. Martir , 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted) (discussing narcotics defendants). In United States v. Sciacca , one of the district judges in the Southern District of Florida summarized the Eleventh Circuit's approach to the analysis of the presumption as follows. Once it is determined that the statutory presumption applies based upon the crime charged, then "the defendant carries the burden of production to come forward with evidence to rebut the presumption." United State v. Quartermaine , 913 F.2d 910, 916 (11th Cir. 1990). Although the statutory presumption places a burden of production on a defendant, the burden of persuasion concerning the dangerousness [or risk of flight] remains on the government. United States v. King , 849 F.2d 485, 488 (11th Cir. 1988). . . . The kind of evidence which a defendant must produce to satisfy his burden of production must "suggest that he . . . [is] either not dangerous or not likely to flee if turned loose on bail." United States v. Hurtado , 779 F.2d 1467, 1479 (11th Cir. 1985). If the defendant produces such evidence, the presumption does not disappear but "remains in the case as an evidentiary finding militating against release, to be weigh[ed] along with other evidence relative to factors listed in section 3142 (g). United States 1 King , 849 F.2d 485, 488 (11th Cir. 1988). Sciacca , (unpublished opinion), Court File No. 03-80164-Cr-Hurley, at pp. 4-5 (S.D. Fl. Feb. 25, 2004). Here, the defendant's blatant disregard of the order of the Florida court regarding his contact with the victim shows his continued dangerousness. In addition, there is evidence that he is having "romantic" chats with EFTA00229759 other minors, including one located in Texas. Furthermore, in considering a defendant's risk of flight, the Court must consider the defendant's ties to the community where the prosecution occurs, not merely his ties to the United States at large or the district in which he is arrested. See, e.g., United States v. Adipietro , 773 F. Supp. 1270 (W.D. Mo. 1991). The only tie that the defendant has to the Southern District of Florida is the victim in this case. He is not employed here, does not live here, and does not attend school here. The defendant's lack of ties to the Southern District of Florida and the amount of time that he will be facing on federal charges also are evidence of an incentive to flee. Count 1 of the indictment carries a five year mandatory minimum sentence, up to a maximum of 30 years, and Count 2 carries a maximum of 30 years. Both also carry a recommended supervised release term of life. The United States Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of Texas considered these factors and determined that a $12,000 cash bond was sufficient to secure the safety of the community in the Southern District of Florida and to secure the defendant's appearance at trial. For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that the Court revoke the order of the Magistrate Judge and order the defendant detained pending his intial appearance in the Southern District of Florida. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Florida Bar # West Palm Beach, FL 33401 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by facsimile this 21st day of April, 2006, to Heidi Peden, Esq. Counsel for Defendant. ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY fi stein is named as a defendant in twenty-seven counts. aE currently is not one of the Jane Does referenced in the indictment. UA grand jury indictment provides the probable cause required by the statute to trigger the presumption. United States v. Hurtado , 779 F.2d 1467 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Quartermaine , 913 F.2d 910 (11th Cir. 1990). EFTA00229760

EFTA00067398.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 37 pages

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 1 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, serves his responses and objections to Plaintiffs December 9, 2008 Amended First Set Of Interrogatories To Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, attached hereto. Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees this 26th day of January, 2009: Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss. P.A. Stuart S. Mermelstein Es Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ounse • r aintiff Jane Doe #2 Corn P /I(EXHIBIT '02 EFTA00067398 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 2 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 2 Respectfully su itted, By: ROBERT RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Ba SQ. , LUTTIER & COLEMAN (Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00067399 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 3 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 3 DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Interrogatory No. 1. Identify all employees who performed work of services inside the Palm Beach Residence. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions 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, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information for a time period from January 1, 2003 until present. Also, see "Employee" as defined in paragraph g of Plaintiffs interrogatories. Interrogatory No. 2. Identify all Employees not identified in response to interrogatory no. 1 who at any time came to Defendant's Palm Beach Residence. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions 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, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information for "all Employees" "who at any time" came to the residence. Also, see "Employee" as defined in paragraph g of Plaintiffs interrogatories. EFTA00067400 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 4 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 4 Interrogatory No. 3. Identify all persons who came to the Palm Beach Residence and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions 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, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Interrogatory No. 4. Identify all persons who came to the New York Residence and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions 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, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Interrogatory No. 5. Identify all persons who came to the New Mexico Residence and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk losing my Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my EFTA00067401 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 5 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 5 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, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Interrogatory No. 6. Identify all persons who came to the St. Thomas Residence and who gave a massage or were asked to give a massage to Defendant. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions 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, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Interrogatory No. 7. List all the time periods during which Jeffrey Epstein was present in the State of Florida, including for each the date he arrive and the date he departed. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions 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, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the EFTA00067402 Cise 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 6 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 6 discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004-2005." Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information for a time period from January 1, 2003 until present. Interrogatory No. 8. Identify all of Jeffrey Epstein health care providers in the past (10) ten years, including without limitation, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, physicians, hospitals and treatment facilities. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions 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, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, such information is privileged pursuant to Rule 501, Fed. Evid., and §90.503, FIa.Evid. Code. In addition, such information is protected by the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Interrogatory No. 9. List all items in Jeffrey Epstein's possession in Palm Beach, Florida, at any time during the period of these interrogatories, which were used or intended to be used as sexual aids, sex toys, massage aids, and/or vibrators, and for each, list the manufacturer, model number (if applicable), and its present location. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions 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, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005," while Plaintiffs interrogatory seeks information from EFTA00067403 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 7 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 7 January 1, 2003, until present. Further, the request is meant to embarrass and harass the Defendant. Interrogatory No. 10. Identify all persons who provide transportation services to Jeffrey Epstein, whether as employees or independent contractors, including without limitation, chauffeurs and aircraft crew. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions 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, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff places no time limitation. Interrogatory No. 11. Identify all telephone numbers used by Epstein, including cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences, by stating the complete telephone number and the name of the service provider. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions 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, Defendant also objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs allegations claim a time period of "in or about 2004-2005" and involve Defendant's Palm Beach residence. Interrogatory No. 12. Identify all telephone numbers of employees of Epstein, used in the course or scope of their employment, including cellular phones and land lines in any of his residences, by stating the complete telephone number and the name of the service provider. EFTA00067404 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 8 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 8 Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions 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, Defendant objects as the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs allegations claim a time period of min or about 2004-2005" and involve Defendant's Palm Beach residence. Interrogatory No. 13. List the names and addresses of all persons who are believed or known by your, your agents, or your attorneys to have any knowledge concerning any of the issues in this lawsuit; and specify the subject matter about which the witness has knowledge. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions 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 interrogatory seeks information that is attorney-client and work product privileged as it seeks information known by Defendant's attorneys. The interrogatory is so overbroad that Defendant cannot reasonably form a response, including the raising of additional privileges which may apply. Without waiving any objection, see Rule 26 disclosures made by Defendant's counsel in this case. Interrogatory No. 14. State the name and address of every person known to you, your agents, or your attorneys who has knowledge about, possession, or custody, or control of, any model, plat, map, drawing, motion picture, videotape or photograph pertaining to any fact or issue involved in this controversy; and describe as to each, what item such person has, the name and address of the person who took or prepared it, and the date it was taken or prepared. EFTA00067405 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 9 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 9 Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions 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 interrogatory seeks information that is attorney-client and work product privileged as it seeks information known by Defendant's attorneys. Interrogatory No. 15. Identify all persons who have made a claim, complaint, demand or threat against you relating to alleged sexual abuse or misconduct on a minor, and for each provide the following information: a. The person's full name, last known address and telephone number; b. The person's attorney, if represented; c. The date of the alleged incident(s); d. If a civil case has been filed by or on behalf of the person, the case number and identifying information. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions 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 and without waiving such objection, with regard to subparagraph (d), Defendant's counsel states that such information is public record and equally attainable by Plaintiff. Interrogatory No. 16. State the facts upon which you intend to rely for each denial of a pleading allegation and for each affirmative defense you intend to make in these cases. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions relevant to this lawsuit and I must accept this advice or risk EFTA00067406 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 10 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 10 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, no answer to the Amended Complaint has been filed by defense counsel in this case; however, Defendant does not intend to waive his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Defendant further objects in that Plaintiffs interrogatory attempts to obtain discovery in other cases filed by her undersigned counsel. Interrogatory No. 17. Identify all witnesses from whom you have obtained or requested a written, transcribed or recorded statement relating to any issue in these cases, and for each, in addition to the witness's identifying information, state the date of the statement and identify the person taking the statement. Answer: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the interrogatories as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to respond to all relevant questions regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that I cannot provide answers to any questions 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, Defendant objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks information that is attorney-client and work product privileged. In addition, the request is overbroad in that it seeks information "relating to any issue." STATE OF Flor.‘ COUNTY OF 9c,\. Ckery ) I hereby certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared e_sccrr..z.i , known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Interrogatories who EFTA00067407 . Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 11 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 11 acknowledged before me that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the following form of identification of the above-named person: personally known/identification and that an oath was/was not taken. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 2.6* day of \ar‘..acar..‘ 2009. • ••••• NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF FLORIDA PRelatrvIE: cs14/ krxr..en.. Mrktit ?trial Notary Public/State of Florida (SEAL) Commission (* Expires: D Commission #: BONDED THRU Amur= BONDING CO, Bic My Commission Expires: EFTA00067408 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 12 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, dated December 19, 2008 Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorneys, serves his responses and objections to the Request to Produce, dated December 19, 2008 and states: Request No. 1. All policies of insurance, including the declarations page and all binders, amendments, and endorsements, covering Defendant's residence at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, FL 33480. Response: Objection, overly broad, not relevant and material and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff alleged claims occurred during a specific time period in 2004 - 2005, yet to be specifically identified. Yet, no time period whatsoever is set forth in the Request for Production. Additionally, Defendant objects in that the policies contain value and/or asset information which is not relevant, material nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at this point in time; said information is both private and confidential. ecier*lis EFTA00067409 lase 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 13 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 2 Certificate of Service WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this 26th day of January 2009. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq. A Stuart S. M rmelstein Es o- ounse or Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 Respectfull sub ed By: ROBER Florida Ba MICHAEL J. PIKE ESQ. Florida Bar BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN (Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00067410 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 14 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, serves his responses and objections to Plaintiff's Amended First Request For Production To Defendant, dated December 9, 2008. Request No. 1. The list provided to you by the U.S. Attorney of individuals whom the U.S. Attorney was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an offense by Mr. Epstein enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §2255. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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 EFTA00067411 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 15 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 2 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Request No. 2. All documents referring or relating to the United States' agreement with Defendant to defer federal prosecution subject to certain conditions, including without limitation, the operative agreement between Defendant and the United States and all amendments, revisions and supplements thereto. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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 EFTA00067412 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 16 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 3 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Request No. 3. All documents referring or relating to Defendant's agreement with the State of Florida on his plea of guilty to violations of Florida Criminal Statutes, including without limitation, the operative plea agreement and any amendments, revisions and supplements thereto. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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 EFTA00067413 Cse 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 17 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 4 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Whatever public documents exist are in the State Court file and equally accessible to Plaintiff. Request No.4. All documents obtained in discovery or investigation relating to either the Florida Criminal Case or the Federal Criminal Case, including without limitation, documents obtained from any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency, the State Attorney's office and the United States Attorney's office. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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 EFTA00067414 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 18 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 5 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Request No. 4 seeks documents that are attorney-client and work product privileged in that it seeks "all documents obtained in discovery or investigation relating either to the Florida Criminal Case or the Federal Criminal Case ... ." In addition, such documents are privileged and confidential as they are the subject of a pending investigation. Request No. 5. All telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone calls made by or to Defendant, including without limitation, telephone logs and message pads. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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 EFTA00067415 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 19 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 6 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Defendant objects as the request is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005." Plaintiffs request seeks information for a time period of January 1, 2003 until present regarding any and all telephone records and other documents reflecting any and all telephone calls made to or by Defendant. As phrased, the request includes attorney-client and work product privileged information, as well as records and documents of calls having absolutely no relationship to any of the allegations in this action. Request No. 6. All telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone calls made by or to Defendant, including without limitation, telephone logs and message pads, reflecting telephone calls made by or to employees. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce EFTA00067416 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 20 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 7 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, as defined by Plaintiff in paragraph g of her request, the term employee is overly broad and encompasses information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the request seeks information pertaining to person who are not parties to this action and whose privacy rights are implicated. Request No. 7. All surveillance videos, slides, film, videotape, digital recording or other audio or video depiction or image of the Palm Beach Residence. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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 EFTA00067417 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 21 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 8 Sixth Amendment right to effective representation.

EFTA00222049.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 24 pages

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, I. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE & OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, serves his responses and objections to Plaintiffs Amended First Request For Production To Defendant, dated December 9, 2008. Request No. 1. The list provided to you by the U.S. Attorney of individuals whom the U.S. Attorney was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an offense by Mr. Epstein enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §2255. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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 EXHIBIT "B" EFTA00222049 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 2 of 24 Jane Doe No. 21. Epstein Page 2 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Request No. 2. All documents referring or relating to the United States' agreement with Defendant to defer federal prosecution subject to certain conditions, including without limitation, the operative agreement between Defendant and the United States and all amendments, revisions and supplements thereto. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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 EFTA00222050 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 3 of 24 Jane Doe No. Epstein 21. Page 3 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Request No. 3. All documents referring or relating to Defendant's agreement with the State of Florida on his plea of guilty to violations of Florida Criminal Statutes, including without limitation, the operative plea agreement and any amendments, revisions and supplements thereto. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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 EFTA00222051 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 4 of 24 Jane Doe No. 2'. Epstein Page 4 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Whatever public documents exist are in the State Court file and equally accessible to Plaintiff. Request No.4. All documents obtained in discovery or investigation relating to either the Florida Criminal Case or the Federal Criminal Case, including without limitation, documents obtained from any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency, the State Attorney's office and the United States Attorney's office. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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 EFTA00222052 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 5 of 24 Jane Doe No. 2'. Epstein Page 5 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Request No. 4 seeks documents that are attorney-client and work product privileged in that it seeks "all documents obtained in discovery or investigation relating either to the Florida Criminal Case or the Federal Criminal Case ... ." In addition, such documents are privileged and confidential as they are the subject of a pending investigation. Request No. 5. All telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone calls made by or to Defendant, including without limitation, telephone logs and message pads. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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 EFTA00222053 • Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 6 of 24 Jane Doe No. 2 I. Epstein Page 6 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Defendant objects as the request is overbroad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005." Plaintiffs request seeks information for a time period of January 1, 2003 until present regarding any and all telephone records and other documents reflecting any and all telephone calls made to or by Defendant. As phrased, the request includes attorney-client and work product privileged information, as well as records and documents of calls having absolutely no relationship to any of the allegations in this action. Request No. 6. All telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone calls made by or to Defendant, including without limitation, telephone logs and message pads, reflecting telephone calls made by or to employees. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents regarding this lawsuit, however, my attorneys have counseled me that at the present time I cannot select, authenticate, and produce EFTA00222054 • Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 7 of 24 Jane Doe No. 2'. Epstein Page 7 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, as defined by Plaintiff in paragraph g of her request, the term employee is overly broad and encompasses information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor does it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the request seeks information pertaining to person who are not parties to this action and whose privacy rights are implicated. Request No. 7. All surveillance videos, slides, film, videotape, digital recording or other audio or video depiction or image of the Palm Beach Residence. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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 EFTA00222055 • Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 8 of 24 Jane Doe No. 21. Epstein Page 8 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiffs complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005." Plaintiff's request seeks information for a time period of January 1, 2003 until present regarding "all surveillance videos, etc., or image of the Palm Beach Residence." Request No. 8. All documents referring or relating to Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2, including without limitation, web pages, social networking site pages, correspondence, videotapes and audiotapes. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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 EFTA00222056 • Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 9 of 24 Jane Doe No. 21. Epstein Page 9 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. Request No. 9. All statements taken, transcribed or recorded from any person referring or relating to Defendant's sexual conduct, massages given to Defendant or any issue in these cases. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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 EFTA00222057 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 10 of 24 Jane Doe No. 2'. Epstein Page 10 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. Request No. 10. All documents referring to or relating to air travel and aircraft used by Defendant, including without limitation, flight logs and flight manifests. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. Plaintiffs complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005." Plaintiff's request seeks documents for a EFTA00222058 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 11 of 24 Jane Doe No. 2'. Epstein Page 11 time period of January 1, 2003 until present regarding air travel and aircraft used by Defendant. Request No. 11. Any and all documents referring to or relating to modeling agencies, including but not limited to documents relating to or reflecting communications with female models. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiffs complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005." Plaintiffs request has no time limitation. EFTA00222059 'Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 12 of 24 Jane Doe No. 2'. Epstein Page 12 Request No. 12. All photographs, videotapes, digital images and other documents depicting or showing females who, at the time thereof, were under the age of 21, which were taken or created by or for Defendant and not intended for sale commercially to the public. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiffs complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005." Plaintiffs request has no time limitation. EFTA00222060 'Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 13 of 24 Jane Doe No. 21. Epstein Page 13 Request No. 13. All photographs and painting of females which were displayed in any of Defendant's homes or residences in the time frame of these requests, including without limitation, photographs in standing or sitting frames or wall frames. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005." Plaintiff's request has no time limitation. EFTA00222061 'Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 14 of 24 Jane Doe No. 21 Epstein Page 14 Request No. 14. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and including, but not limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking sites, and e-mails. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiffs complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005." Plaintiffs request has no time limitation. EFTA00222062 'Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 15 of 24 Jane Doe No. 21. Epstein Page 15 Request No. 15. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen, including, but not limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking sites, and e-mails. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005." Plaintiffs request has no time limitation. EFTA00222063 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 16 of 24 Jane Doe No. 21. Epstein Page 16 Request No. 16. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Nada Marcinkova, including, but not limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking sites, and e-mails. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiffs complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005." Plaintiffs request has no time limitation. EFTA00222064 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 17 of 24 Jane Doe No. 2 Epstein Page 17 Request No. 17. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including, but not limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking sites, and e-mails. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiffs complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005." Plaintiffs request has no time limitation. EFTA00222065 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 18 of 24 Jane Doe No. 2'. Epstein Page 18 Request No. 18. Any and all documents and photographs placed by Defendant at any time in the period of these requests on a social networking website, including without limitation, Facebook.com and MySpace.com. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiffs complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005." Plaintiff's request seeks documents and photographs for a time period of January 1, 2003 until present. EFTA00222066 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 19 of 24 Jane Doe No. 21Epstein Page 19 Request No. 19. Any and all documents reflecting or consisting of communications between Jeffrey Epstein and MC2 Models or Jean-Luc Brunel, relating or referring to females coming into the United States from other countries to pursue a career in modeling, including, but not limited to, letters, notes and e- mails. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiffs complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — EFTA00222067 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 20 of 24 Jane Doe No. 4 Epstein Page 20 2005." In addition, the request seeks documents pertaining to females who are not non-parties, and who possess privacy rights. Request No. 20. Any and all documents referring or relating to gifts or loans to females under the age of 21, including, but not limited to, notes, receipts and car rental agreements. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiffs complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005." Plaintiffs request has no time limitation. EFTA00222068 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 21 of 24 Jane Doe No, 2'. Epstein Page 21 Request No. 21. Any and all personal calendars or schedules of or for Jeffrey Epstein from January 1, 2003 to the present. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiffs complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005." In addition, the request encompasses attorney-client privileged material. Request No. 22. All documents written by Jeffrey Epstein consisting of personal thoughts, feelings or descriptions of events, incidents or occurrences in Defendant's life, including without limitation, any diaries of Jeffrey Epstein. EFTA00222069 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 22 of 24 Jane Doe No. 21Epstein Page 22 Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiffs complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 - 2005." On its fact, the request goes beyond the scope of allowable discovery and is meant to harass, embarrass and overburden the Defendant. Further, the request is so overly broad that it includes attorney-client and work product privileged materials. Request No. 23. All documents referring to or relating to Jeffrey Epstein's purchase or consumption of prescription medicine. EFTA00222070 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 23 of 24 Jane Doe No. 21. Epstein Page 23 Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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. Further, the request is overly broad, work product, attorney-client privileged, and confidential. In addition, the request seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiffs complaint alleges a time period of "in or about 2004 — 2005." Defendant's medical condition is not at issue in this action. Such a request is meant to harass and embarrass Defendant. Further, such information is privileged pursuant to Fed. Rule 501 and §90.503, Fla. Stat. In addition, such information is protected by the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). EFTA00222071 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 24 of 24 Jane Doe No. 2'. Epstein Page 24 Certificate of Service WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this 26th day of January 2009. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.

EFTA00155158.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 4 pages

From: (USANYS) [Contractor]" To: ' (NY) (FBI)" wrote: That works for me. From: Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 4:18 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: (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) < >; EFTA00155158 Cc: (USANYS) < c>; (USANYS) Subject: RE: Maxwell To-dos Sure thing! — I'll be around until 230 today if you're available to drop them off. From: (USANYS) < Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 9:55 AM To: (NY) (FBI) < ::.; (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: From: (USANYS) c E> Sent: Friday, June 4, 202112:47 PM To: (NYPD)< > Cc: (NY) (FBI) < :.; (USANYS) (USANYS) Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - RE: Maxwell To-dos Thanks! From: Sent: Friday, June 4, 202110:12 AM To: (USANYS) < => Cc: (NY) (FBI) : (USANYS) (USANYS) Subject: Re: Maxwell To-dos Sure let me check on that today when I'm in. EFTA00155159 On Jun 3, 2021, at 21:57, (USANYS) < > wrote: Hi M, Checking in again on the .avi files from CART. Any update? Thanks, From: (USANYS) Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 2:40 PM To: (NY) (FBI) < > Cc: (USANYS) (USANYS) Subject: RE: Maxwell To-dos Hi M, Any update from CART regarding the .avi files, please? And any luck with the review of images for Thanks, From: < Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 1:24 PM To: (USANYS) >; . (NY) (FBI) < > Cc: (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 EFTA00155160 Office: Cell: Fax: From: (USANYS) Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 4:03 PM To:-. (NY) (FBI) < >; > 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 (M, I know CART has been under water with the Capitol investigation, but wanted to ping on this to make sure we don't forget it) • Finding PBPD witness who can authenticate the message pads and other items that were seized from Epstein's Palm Beach residence. On this, I've gone through the reports, and below are the PBPD personnel who I think might be able to provide this testimony. If you could please get me contact information for a point of contact at PBPD, I'm happy to hound them for contact info for these individuals (ranked in order of how likely they are to be useful witnesses for these purposes): o Evidence Specialist (inventory return, documentation of property receipts, and collection and bagging of evidence — ideally we could just call her to authenticate everything that was seized from the property) (searched garage, towel closet and pantry off the kitchen, kitchen phone message book, office room, green bathroom on first floor, closet by green bathroom, two bedrooms on second floor with sex toys, pool cabana, 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 CSI (photographer) (pantry next to kitchen, yellow and blue room with photos, main entrance, blue room with photos, sliding glass door room, cars) o Detective (pantry next to kitchen, yellow and blue room with photos, main entrance, blue room with photos, sliding glass door room, cars) o (electronic devices) Thanks very much, Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of New York I St. Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 EFTA00155161

EFTA00729603.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 84 pages

AU itK A (Re. (Al es!,c ala Deposition in a Civil Action UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of Florida M.J. P mg, Civil Action No. CASE NO.: 9:10-cv-81111 JEFFREY EPSTEIN and WM (If the action is pending in another district, state %%here: Defendant SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION To: JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 9 East 71st Street, New York, NY 10021 Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organi zation that is not a party in this case, you must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or design ate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment: I—Plitce: US LEGAL SUPPORT I_ 444 West Railroad Avenue, Suite 300 Date and Time: West Palm Beach, FL 33401 11/10/2010 10:00 am The deposition will be recorded by this method: VIDEQDEPOSITION / COURT REPORTER O Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following doctiments, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or stimpjjgg of the material: is The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protec tion as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule 45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are attached. Date: te." / 7:24 1 , CLERK OF COURT OR Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Amor s signature The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorne y representing (name ofparty) PLAINTIFF, M.J. , who issues or requests this subpoena, are: BRADLEY J. EDWARD W ' g, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Lauderdale, FL 33301, Suite 2. Fort telephone: 954-524-2820. EFTA00729603  AO BSA (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to ic.t .11 .i /cro.nion in a Ci‘i! An Civil Action No. CASE NO.. 9.10-cv-81111 PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not befiled with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) This subpoena for (name ofindividual and title. Vat& JEFFREY EPSTEIN was received by me on (date) O I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows: on (date) ; or 0 I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. Date: Server's signature Primed name and tide Server's address Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: EFTA00729604 Intentionally Left Blank EFTA00729605  Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 1 of 2 AO 4411 (Rev I 2.(9) Summons m a Civil Aclion UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of Florida M.J. Plaintiff v. Civil Action No. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and 10-CV-81111-DIMITROULEAS/SNOW Defendant SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION To: (Defendant's name andaddress) JEFFREY EPSTE IN 9 East 71st Street New York, NY 10021 A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you arc the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3)— you must serve on the plaintiff R. Civ. an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or 12 of motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorne whose name and address arc: BRADLEY y, J. EDWARDS Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entere d against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court. SUMMONS Date: SEPTEMBER 177 2010 s/Gregory Maestre Steven M. Larimore Deputy Clerk U.S. District Courts Clerk of Court EFTA00729606 Intentionally Left Blank EFTA00729607 Case 9:10-cv-81111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants. COMPLAINT Plaintiff, M.J., by and through her undersigned counsel, sues the Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein and and alleges: I. This is an action in an amount in excess of $15,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 2. This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name in order to protect the identity of the Plaintiff because this Complaint makes allegations of sensitive nature of offenses against a then minor child. 3. At all times material to this cause of action, the Plaintiff, M.J. (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff"), was a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. 4. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, had a residence located at 358 El Brillo Way, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. 5. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is currently a citizen of the United States Virgin Islands. EFTA00729608 Case 9:10-cv-81111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 2 of 29 6. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, was an adult male born in 1953. 7. Defendant,a , is currently a citizen of New York, where she currently resides. 8. At all times material, the Defendants Jeffrey Epstein andI. ME both owed a duty unto Plaintiff to treat her in a non-negligent manner and to not commit or conspire to commit intentional or tortious illegal acts against her. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. At all times material, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, was an adult male, over 50 years old. Defendant Epstein is known as a billionaire, yet even those closest to him, including family members, long time employees and those that he considers his closest friends have no idea what he does or did to earn money to support his lifestyle. 10. Defendant Epstein owns, directly or through nominee individuals used to conceal his interests, a fleet of airplanes, motor vehicles, boats and a helicopter. He 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 St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands (he is alleged to have renamed this island Little St. Jeff's after himself), a mansion in London, England, a home in Paris, France, and a mansion in Palm Beach County, FL. The allegations herein primarily concern the defendant's conduct while at his mansion in Palm Beach County, FL. I. Defendant Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for underage minor females, specifically targeting female children age 12 to 17, and Defendant Epstein acts on that obsession by luring underage minor females to him where he attempts to sexually molest and batter these 2 EFTA00729609 Case 9:10-cv-81111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 3 of 29 underage minor females on an everyday basis, oftentimes 2 or 3 different underage minor females on one day. 12. Sometime prior to 1998, Defendant Epstein devised a complex plan, scheme and criminal enterprise to gain access to countless underage minor females, some as young as 12 years old, for the purpose of coercing the minor females into various acts of sexual misconduct that he committed upon them. His enterprise operated with a definite hierarchal structure with his various employees/assistants and associates, including Defendana, Jean Luc Brunel, Ghislaine Maxwell, IS In; Ma a a a, various housekeepers, butlers and pilots, performing their respective roles to ensure the goals of the enterprise: operate an organized and efficient system to maximize the number of underage minor females for Defendant Epstein (and others) to sexually abuse and exploit while avoiding law enforcement detection. 13. Defendant Epstein, with help from his assistants and associates, recruited and procured underage minor females, lured them to one of his mansions, had the underage minor female taken to a room to be alone with him, then he would appear naked or wearing only a towel and sexually batter or otherwise sexually exploit the underage minor female. He would then pay the underage minor female for the sex acts he committed against her (typically between $200 and $300 per molestation session, or as his criminal enterprise commonly refers to it — per "massage"). Prior to leaving, Defendant Epstein's assistant would get the phone number of the underage minor female and input it into his computer system or otherwise keep it on file. He would then offer the underage minor female to return to his house to make money in exchange for him committing sexual acts against her, and he also typically informed her of another option - make more money recruiting and procuring other underage minor females for him to sexually 3 EFTA00729610 Case 9:10-cv-81111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 4 of 29 abuse. He would tell the underage minor female that he will pay her for each underage minor female that she brings to him (again, typically between $200 and $300), and he encouraged, and oftentimes forcefully demanded, her to bring him as many underage minor females as she was able. Through this general pitch, Defendant Epstein created a vast pyramid of underage minor females recruiting and procuring other underage minor females for his purpose of coercing these underage females into sexual acts for money. 14. Defendants Epstein and and the criminal enterprise specifically targeted underprivileged and economically disadvantaged children to sexually exploit and molest and otherwise prey upon the vulnerabilities of these young girls. 15. It is unknown exactly how long Defendant Epstein's aforementioned criminal enterprise operated, although information and belief indicates that it was continuously and actively in operation from at least 1998 through Defendant Epstein's criminal arrest in 2006. 16. The complete list of underage minor females that were sexually abused by Defendant Epstein over the years is believed to have been kept on a computer system controlled by Defendant Epstein and accessible by several of his employees, including Defendant It is also known that much of the data regarding the names, addresses and whereabouts of each underage minor female was input by one of his assistants, including Defendant 17. Defendant was listed in the Federal Non-prosecution Agreement related to Defendant Epstein's criminal plea on sex charges against minors as a criminal co-conspirator for her role in the criminal activity that was committed by Defendant Epstein against many underage minor females. She was employed by Defendant Epstein to maintain his schedule, arrange for underage minor females to be with Defendant Epstein, maintain contact with the underage minor females, schedule the underage minor females' transportation to and from Defendant Epstein's 4 EFTA00729611 Case 9:10-cv-81111-)OOOC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 5 of 29 mansion, and greet the underage minor female at the house before taking her upstairs to be alone with Mr. Epstein. Upon information and belief, Defendant remains employed by Defendant Epstein and continues to work for Defendant Epstein in furtherance of the goals of the criminal enterprise. 18. Defendant Epstein used his vast wealth and power to lure underprivileged minor females to him, and to coerce them into prostitution once he was alone with the underage minor female. He sexually battered, molested, committed lewd and lascivious acts upon and otherwise exploited numerous underage minor females and then gave them money. So long as the underage minor female followed his demands and advances, he assumed the role of a friend or mentor or father figure to the minor female in an attempt to groom the minor female; however, if any minor female resisted his sexual advances, Defendant Epstein became frustrated, angry and threatening towards the underage minor. His intent was to groom each minor female into engaging in sexual acts with him as well as to "work" for him, i.e. bring him other underage minor females to sexually molest, batter and exploit. He was masterful in his exploitation and grooming of these minor females with an additional intent of gaining trust and cooperation from these minors to prevent any one of them from reporting his criminal acts to law enforcement. Certain of his many co-conspirator associates, including Ghislane Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel, helped in this recruiting process by creating the impression that legitimate modeling opportunities were available for the minor females. 19. Through information and belief, Defendant Epstein has been successful in luring hundreds of underage minor girls to him for the purpose of him (and sometimes others) sexually abusing them. He intentionally preys upon underage minor females that are middle school or high school children who are not working prostitutes, and he takes pleasure in using his power 5 EFTA00729612 Case 9:10-cv-81111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 6 of 29 and influence to coerce these minor females into acts of prostitution with him personally and sometimes with his friends and associates as well, including but not limited to Ghislaine Maxwell and 20. Over time, Defendant Epstein fine-tuned his operation to further his goals of gaining access to a greater number and variety of underage girls while avoiding detection by law enforcement. He also provided the roadmap for his enterprise should the illegal sexual exploitation of the enterprise be detected — he or the criminal enterprise would (and did) retain legal representation for each criminal enterprise member who would instruct each member to invoke his/her 5th amendment rights, they would hide behind the 5th amendment to avoid turning over incriminating materials (i.e. computer system that logged information about the underage sexual molestation victims, scheduling books, message pads, and tangible items such as vibrators and dildos), they would destroy evidence and refuse all cooperation with law enforcement. 21. The plan and scheme was developed by Defendant Epstein, and he and his assistants and associates carried it out with each underage minor female in a well-planned and ritualistic manner; Epstein ran this criminal enterprise as an experienced Mob boss would run any organized crime family — in a well-planned, organized, arrogant and ruthless manner, with complete cooperation from his co-conspirator associates and underlings and an absolute dedication to carrying out the illegal operations of the criminal enterprise. 22. Defendant Epstein frequently traveled between his various mansions and either he or an authorized agent would call to inform a recruiter, assistant, or scheduler at his next destination as to his arrival time. His scheduler, usually Defendant la, would then contact an underage minor female and schedule her to be at Defendant Epstein's mansion or to bring another underage minor female to his mansion at a particular time. Once the minor female was 6 EFTA00729613 Case 9:10-cv-81111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 7 of 29 brought to Defendant Epstein's residence, she was greeted at the door of the mansion and lead inside by one of Defendant Epstein's employees, oftentimes Defendant 23. Defendant would lead the underage minor female up to Defendant Epstein's room and leave the underage minor alone in the room. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, himself would then appear naked or wearing only a towel. He would then demand a massage and during the massage he would attempt, usually successfully, to perform one or more lewd, lascivious, and sexual acts, including, but not limited to, masturbation, touching of the underage minor female's sexual organs, coercing or forcing the underage minor female to perform sex acts with him, using vibrators or sexual toys on the underage minor female, coercing the underage minor female into sexual intercourse with himself or others, and digitally penetrating the underage minor female. He would then give the Plaintiff money for engaging in this sexual activity. 24. Consistent with Defendants Epstein and foregoing scheme or plan, in or around the summer of 2002, Plaintiff, an economically poor and vulnerable child, was told by another one of Epstein's underage minor sex abuse victims, that she could make $300 cash by giving an old man a massage on Palm Beach. 25. Plaintiff's then minor acquaintance (also a sexual abuse victim of Epstein) telephoned Defendant Epstein and scheduled for Plaintiff to go to Defendant Epstein's house to give him a massage. During that call, Defendant Epstein himself got on the phone and spoke with Plaintiff MJ and asked her personally to come to his mansion in Palm Beach. 26. Plaintiff then took a taxicab to Defendant Epstein's mansion and was greeted by Epstein's top assistant, Defendant 27. Defendant in furtherance of the scheme to exploit Plaintiff, escorted Plaintiff upstairs to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's large bathroom, where Defendant set up the 7 EFTA00729614 Case 9:10-cv-81111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 8 of 29 massage table and showed Plaintiff different massage lotions to use. Defendant Illlithen left Plaintiff alone in the room. Plaintiff was alone in Defendant Epstein's bathroom until Defendant Jeffrey Epstein emerged wearing only a towel. 28. Defendant Epstein then walked to the massage table that was already open in the room. He lied face down on the table and told Plaintiff to start massaging him, at which time he engaged in a conversation with Plaintiff. During the conversation, Defendant Epstein asked Plaintiff her age and she told him she had recently turned 16. 29. Consistent with all of Defendant Epstein's known underage minor female victims, Plaintiff had no massage experience whatsoever and she informed him of that, and Defendant Epstein began instructing Plaintiff on how he liked his massage. 30. After approximately 15 minutes, Defendant Epstein turned over onto his back, and he commanded Plaintiff to massage his chest. 31. Defendant Epstein then suddenly removed his towel and his penis was already erect. He then commanded Plaintiff to remove her shirt and bra and to begin "pinching his nipples" as he began masturbating with his right hand. 32. As he was masturbating, Defendant Epstein began fondling Plaintiff's breasts. 33. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, while masturbating with his right hand, reached out his left hand and grabbed Plaintiff's vagina and butt over her clothes. Plaintiff pushed Defendant's hand away and told him repeatedly not to touch her like that. Epstein was persistent in his attempt to grab Plaintiff's vagina and continued to grab her vagina and butt on multiple occasions after she told him not to. 34. Defendant Epstein continued to masturbate his exposed penis until he ejaculated in front of the then minor Plaintiff. 8 EFTA00729615 Case 9:10-cv-81111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 9 of 29 35. Plaintiff was shocked and embarrassed by the events and Defendant Epstein talked to her to persuade her that everything he was doing with he was normal. 36. Epstein paid Plaintiff $300 for allowing him to grope her and masturbate in her presence. 37. Plaintiff returned to Epstein's home on approximately 20 occasions. On each occasion Epstein grabbed Plaintiff's bare breasts, exposed his penis, masturbated and ejaculated in Plaintiff's presence, and paid her $300 each time. 38. Defendant Epstein coerced Plaintiff into acts of prostitution, preying on her low economic status and troubled upbringing, complimenting Plaintiff for being "special" to him and having a "very pretty body" and making promises to Plaintiff such as — he told Plaintiff that if she graduated high school, then he would buy her a computer, something that she wanted yet could not afford. 39. On multiple occasions Defendant Epstein pressured Plaintiff to bring him other underage minor females to abuse; he told Plaintiff that he would pay her $300 for each girl she brought him, but Plaintiff refused to bring other girls. 40. Defendant Epstein told Plaintiff that he would pay her more money if she would give him oral sex and that he would pay her $600 for actual sexual intercourse. Plaintiff refused. 41. Defendant Epstein personally called Plaintiff at least five times to tell her when she should be at his house to "work" or give him a "massage" (Epstein's criminal enterprise's learned code words for paying minors for Epstein and others to interact with them sexually). 42. Every other time (approximately 15) Defendant called to inform Plaintiff of the date and time when she needed and was expected to be at Epstein's mansion to "work". 43. The acts referenced above, committed by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, against the then minor Plaintiff were committed in violation of numerous State and Federal criminal statutes 9 EFTA00729616 Case 9:10-cv-81111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 10 of 29 condemning battery, assault and the exploitation of minor children, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and other crimes, specifically including, but not limited to, those criminal offenses outlined in Chapters 796, 800, and 827 of the Florida Statutes, as well as those designated in Florida Statutes §796.03, §796.07, §796.045, §796.04, §796.09, §39.01, §450.151, and §827.04. 44. The above-described acts took place in Palm Beach County, Florida at the residence of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. Any assertions by Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein and that they were unaware of the age of the then minor Plaintiff are belied by their actions and rendered irrelevant by the provisions of applicable Florida Statutes concerning the sexual exploitation and abuse of a minor child. The Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein and at all times material to this cause of action, knew and should have known of the Plaintiffs minority as Plaintiff specifically told Epstein her age and Defendant Epstein and criminal organization has a history of seeking out underage minor children to sexually abuse. In fact, one primary goal of the organization is to sexually abuse females who are under the age of 18, and oftentimes Defendant Epstein has turned away females (i.e. refused to engage in sexual acts with them) for being "too old" once she reaches 18 years of age, and he has reprimanded girls for bringing him other girls who are over the age of majority. 45. In June 2008, in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, Defendant Epstein entered pleas of "guilty" to various Florida State crimes related to his exploitation of minors for sex. 46. As a condition of that plea and in exchange for the Federal Government entering into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Defendant Epstein, wherein the Federal Government agreed to effectively stay any prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, and other criminal co- 10 EFTA00729617 Case 9:10-cv-81111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 11 of 29 conspirators a =Mt and Defendant Epstein agreed to admit that a approximately 40 underage minor females, whose names were provided to Defendant Epstein, were his victims. Plaintiff was not included in that list as she moved away from the West Palm Beach area in part to escape from Epstein, and she has lived in fear of Epstein and his organization and has not yet been contacted by law enforcement. 47. Beginning in or about June 2008 and continuing to the present time, defendant Epstein has been aware he faces significant financial liability for his sexual offenses, both to land to many other similarly-situated girls whom he abused. I and these other girls are creditors of Epstein, in that have filed and can file ton actions against him under both Florida and Federal laws. Accordingly, Epstein has conveyed substantial assets and property into the names of other persons and into overseas bank accounts and other financial institutions. These assets and properties could have been attachable and used to pay the debts owed to ■and to the other girls that Epstein has abused. 48. As an example of the fraudulent conveyances that Epstein has attempted, in approximately October 2009, Epstein placed his personal 727 aircraft up for sale, with the intent that the proceeds of that sale would be hidden so that Nand other creditors of Epstein would not be able to secure payment from that substantial asset. 49. While Epstein is clearly distinct from the criminal enterprise that he oversees that asset, as well as his other airplanes and helicopters and other assets, have been used continuously and repeatedly to further the interest and endeavors of Epstein and his criminal enterprise. 50. As another example of the fraudulent transfers that Epstein has made, Epstein has titled a Ford F-I50 Truck in the name of Larry Visoki (Epstein's personal pilot). Visoski was unaware that the truck was titled in his name when he was questioned under oath in a deposition. II EFTA00729618 Case 9:10-cv-81111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 12 of 29 51. In approximately 2009, Defendant Epstein purchased a $68,000 Land Rover and registered it in Visoski's name with the intent to hide this asset fromUnd other creditors. 52. In approximately 2009, Defendant Epstein purchased a Mercedes-Benz 2005 by wiring funds to Visoski and then placing the car in Visoski's name. 53. In approximately 2009, Defendant Epstein bought a Jaguar X-Type 2005 so that he (Epstein) would have another car around Palm Beach available for his friends to use and then placed the car in Visoski's name. 54. In approximately September 2009, Visoski attempted to sell a Ferrari owned by Epstein for $159,000. Epstein intended for the sale to hide the value of this Ferrari and prevents and other creditors from recovering from him. 55. Epstein is concealing substantial assets through a new corporation, Shmitka Air, Inc., whose representative is Larry Visoski. In September 2010, Epstein attempted to sell a 1999 Bell Helicopter for approximately $1,900,000. This sale was an attempt to prevent sand other creditors from recovering from him. 56. Epstein is also concealing substantial assets through an entity known at JEGE, Inc. He is currently attempting to sell an aircraft for $10,000,000 through that entity in an attempt to prevent Nand other creditors from recovering from him. 57. Through information and belief, Epstein and/or his criminal enterprise provides the financial support for his various employees, co-conspirators, other criminal enterprise members and associates. 58. In addition to Epstein's various houses, he owns or controls other condominiums, including approximately 8 to 10 units at in New York City, where certain of his or his Criminal Enterprise associates live or reside, including Jean Luc Brunel, 12 EFTA00729619 Case 9:10-cv-8111140(XX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 13 of 29 ME'S= and at times various underage minor girls are stashed at this location as well. 59. Defendant Epstein has numerous overseas contacts and accounts and sophistication in international business transactions. He previously served as a trader at Bear Steams and founded his own financial management firm. J. Epstein and Col. (later called Financial Trust Co.) located on his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands where, until his recent incarceration, according to him he allegedly managed the assets of billionaire clients. 60. After extensive investigation into Epstein's employment history, including questioning of Epstein's family, those whom Epstein considers friends and longtime employees of Epstein, the only known client of Epstein was Limited, Inc. Founder Leslie Wexner, although it is believed that even that relationship has been severed. No other legitimate means of income have been reported. COUNT I BATTERY AGAINST DEFENDANT EPSTEIN 61. Plaintiff M.J. adopts and realleges paragraphs I through 60 above. 62. In the summer of 2002, just after Plaintiff turned 16 years old, Defendant Epstein committed battery against Plaintiff when he intentionally touched intimate areas of her body and person in an offensive manner while she was a minor child. 63. Defendant Epstein intentionally touched Plaintiff private areas multiple times against the will of 64. Defendant Epstein's tortious commission of battery upon Plaintiff was done willfully. 65. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses committed by Defendant Epstein against the then minor Plaintiff,■ she has in the past suffered and will in the future suffer injury, pain 13 EFTA00729620 Case 9:10-cv-S1111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 14 of 29 and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of enjoyment of life, invasion of her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulation and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. Plaintiff will incur medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and loss of proper and complete education. These injuries are permanent in nature and Plaintiff will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages and such other relief as this Court deems proper and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT II INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST DEFENDANT EPSTEIN 66. The Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs I through 60 above. 67. Defendant Epstein's extreme and outrageous conduct towards the then minor Plaintiff was intentional and reckless. 68. Defendant Epstein acted with the intent to cause severe emotional distress or with reckless disregard for the high probability of causing severe emotional distress. 69. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses committed by Defendant Epstein against the then minor Plaintiff, ■she has in the past suffered and will in the future suffer injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of enjoyment of life, invasion of her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulation and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. Plaintiff will incur medical and 14 EFTA00729621 Case 9:10-cv-81111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 15 of 29 psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, loss of proper and complete education. These injuries are permanent in nature and Plaintiff MJ will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ■ demands judgment against Defendant Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages and such other relief as this Court deems proper and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT HI C NSPIRACY TO COMMIT T In BATTERY AGAINST DEFENDANT 70. The Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs I through 60 above. 71. Defendant = is one of Defendant Epstein's top assistants, as referenced previously in this Complaint. Defendant Epstein, Defendant = and others reached an agreement amongst and between them and otherwise conspired for the purpose of allowing Defendant Epstein and others to commit the tortious and illegal acts described above against Plaintiff. 72. Defendant aided, abetted and assisted Defendant Epstein in his organized scheme and plan to sexually exploit Plaintiff and commit battery against her and/or commit or attempt to commit numerous other crimes against her, including coercing her into prostitution. 73. Defendant conspired with Defendant Epstein to commit tortious and illegal conduct against Plaintiff, and in furtherance of the conspiracy specifically engaged in overt acts such as contacting Plaintiffs on many occasions, scheduling the then minor Plaintiff's appointment for a "massage" knowing that Defendant Epstein was going to commit battery against Plaintiff, attempt sexual battery against Plaintiff, and force her into prostitution and otherwise did everything in her ability to conceal the illegal operation and refuse cooperation with law enforcement. 15 EFTA00729622 Case 9:10-cv-81111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 16 of 29 74. Additionally, Defendant greeted Plaintiff on the occasions when Plaintiff arrived at Epstein's home and personally lead Plaintiff to Defendant Epstein's bathroom where Epstein appeared for the purposes of committing crimes against Plaintiff 75. Defendant Epstein's battery against Plaintiff was facilitated by Defendant and the conspiracy resulted in the various aforementioned crimes being committed against Plaintiff ■ as well as many other underage minor females. 76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, participation in the aforementioned conspiracy, Plaintiff,. she has in the past suffered and will in the future suffer injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of enjoyment of life, invasion of her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulation and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. Plaintiff will incur medical and psychological expenses. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, loss of proper and complete education. These injuries are permanent in nature and Plaintiff■ will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff■ demands judgment against Defendant for compensatory damages, punitive damages and such other relief as this Court deems proper and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNTS IV THROUGH XXIII CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS EPSTEIN AND PURSUANT TO 18 USC 82255 IN VIOLATION OF VARIOUS ENUMERATED OFFENSES CONTAINED WITHIN THAT FEDERAL STATUTE 77. Plaintiff,. adopts and realleges paragraphs I through 60 above. 78. The allegations contained herein in Counts IV through XXIII are separate and distinct legal remedies. I6 EFTA00729623 Case 9:10-cv-81111-X)OO( Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 17 of 29 79. As a condition of Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's criminal plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant for numerous federal offenses, the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Federal Government; that agreement governed not only Defendant Epstein's conduct but also the conduct of his "co-conspirators" including Defendant as she played an essential and criminal role in the commission of these offenses. 80. The Plaintiff,■was in fact a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, and as such asserts a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and against Defendant pursuant to this Section of the United States Code and the agreement between the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and the United States Government. 81. Specifically, Defendants Epstein and (a) knowingly conspired with others known and unknown to use a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females, including Plaintiff MJ, to engage in prostitution, in violation of title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b). (b) knowingly and willfully conspired with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with minors, including Plaintiff MJ, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); (c) used a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females, including Plaintiff MJ, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b); 17 EFTA00729624 Case 9:10-cv-81111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 18 of 29 (d) traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(0, with minor females, including Plaintiff MJ; in violation of Title l8, United States Code, Section 2423(b). 82. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, Plaintiff, MJ, she has in the past suffered and will in the future suffer injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, loss of enjoyment of life, invasion of her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant's manipulation and leading her into a perverse and unhealthy way of life. Plaintiff will incur medical and psychological expenses. These injuries are permanent in nature and PlaintiffEwill continue to suffer these losses in the future. Plaintiff= has also incurred attorneys' fees. 83. With regard to each of the following counts, Plaintiff suffered personal injury, as outlined above from the acts above, as a result of the violations of federal criminal law by Defendant Epstein enumerated in paragraph 33, on approximately 20 occasions, and while the dates are not all precisely documented or diaried by Plaintiff, Defendants Epstein and committed these crimes and inflicted said injuries on or about the following dates: COUNT IV August 2002 COUNT V September 2002 COUNT VI October 2002 COUNT VII November 2002 COUNT VIII December 2002 COUNT IX January 2003 18 EFTA00729625 Case 9:10-cv-81111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 19 of 29 COUNT X February 2003 COUNT Xi

EFTA01072511.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 135 pages

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FOI/PA DELETED PAGE INFORMATION SHEET FOI/PA# 1203982-1 Total Deleted Page(s) = 156 Page 30 - b6; b7C; Page 31 - b6; b7C; Page 32 - b6; b7C; Page 33 - b6; b7C; Page 34 - b6; b7C; Page 35 b6; b7C; Page 36 - b6; b7C; Page 37 - b6; b7C; Page 38 b6; b7C; Page 39 - b6; b7C; Page 41 b6; b7C; Page 43 - b6; b7C; Page 47 - b6; b7C; Page 48 b6; b7C; Page 49 - b6; b7C; Page 50 - b6; b7C; Page 56 - b6; b7C; Page 57 - b6; b7C; Page 58 b6; b7C; Page 66 - b6; b7C; Page 68 b6; b7C; Page 93 - b6; b7C; b7E; Page 95 b6; b7C; Page 96 - b6; b7C; Page 105 b3; b6; b7C; Page 106 - b6; b7C; Page 107 b6; b7C; Page 108 - b6; b7C; Page 115 b6; b7C; Page 116 - b6; b7C; Page 117 - b6; b7C; Page 123 - b6; b7C; Page 124 - b6; b7C; Page 125 - b6; b7C; Page 126 - b6; b7C; Page 133 - b6; b7C; Page 134 - b6; b7C; Page 136 - b6; b7C; Page 137 b6; b7C; Page 138 - b6; b7C; Page 147 b6; b7C; Page 148 - 46; b7C; Page 157 - 46; b7C; Page 158 - b6; b7C; Page 159 - b6; b7C; Page 165 b6; b7C; Page 166 - b6; b7C; Page 167 - 46; b7C; EFTA01072511 Page 168 - b6; b7C; Page 175 - b6; b7C; Page 176 - b6; b7C; Page 177 - b6; b7C; Page 178 - b6; b7C; Page 179 - b6; b7C; Page 187 - b6; b7C; Page 188 - b6; b7C; Page 189 - b6; b7C; Page 190 - b6; b7C; Page 195 - b6; b7C; Page 199 - b6; b7C; Page 205 - b6; b7C; Page 206 - b6; b7C; Page 207 - b6; b7C; Page 208 - b6; b7C; Page 215 - b6; b7C; Page 216 - b6; b7C; Page 221 - b6; b7C; Page 222 - b6; b7C; Page 223 - b6; b7C; Page 224 - b6; b7C; Page 225 - b6; b7C; Page 226 - b6; b7C; Page 227 - b6; b7C; Page 228 - b6; b7C; Page 229 - b6; b7C; Page 230 - b6; b7C; Page 231 - b6; b7C; Page 232 - b6; b7C; Page 233 - b6; b7C; Page 234 - b6; b7C; Page 235 - b6; b7C; Page 236 - b6; b7C; Page 237 - b6; b7C; Page 238 - b6; b7C; Page 239 - b6; b7C; Page 240 - b6; b7C; Page 241 - b6; b7C; Page 242 - b6; b7C; Page 243 - b6; b7C; Page 244 - b6; b7C; Page 245 - b6; b7C; Page 246 - b6; b7C; Page 247 - b6; b7C; Page 248 - b6; b7C; Page 250 - b3; b6; b7C; Page 251 - b3; b6; b7C; Page 252 - b3; b6; b7C; Page 253 - b3; Page 254 - b3; b6; b7C; Page 259 - Duplicate - serial 125; Page 274 - b6; b7C; Page 275 - b6; b7C; EFTA01072512 Page 278 - b6; b7C; Page 279 - b6; b7C; Page 284 - b6; b7C; Page 285 - b6; b7C; Page 333 - OTHER - Sealed per Court Order 08-8068-LRJ; Page 334 - OTHER - Sealed per Court Order 08-8068-LRJ; Page 335 - OTHER - Sealed per Court Order 08-8068-LRJ; Page 336 - OTHER - Sealed per Court Order 08-8068-LRJ; Page 337 - OTHER - Sealed per Court Order 08-8068-LRJ; Page 338 - OTHER - Sealed per Court Order 08-8068-LRJ; Page 339 - b5; b6; b7C; Page 340 - b5; b6; b7C; Page 341 - b5; b6; b7C; Page 342 - b5; b6; b7C; Page 343 - b5; b6; b7C; Page 344 - b5; b6; b7C; Page 345 - b5; b6; b7C; Page 346 - b5; b6; b7C; Page 347 - b5; b6; b7C; Page 348 - b5; b6; b7C; Page 349 - b5; b6; b7C; Page 350 - b5; b6; b7C; Page 351 - b5; b6; b7C; Page 352 - b5; b6; b7C; Page 353 - Duplicate - serial 159; Page 354 - Duplicate - serial 159; Page 355 - Duplicate - serial 159; Page 356 - Duplicate - serial 159; Page 357 - Duplicate serial 159; Page 358 - Duplicate serial 159; Page 359 - Duplicate serial 159; Page 360 Duplicate - serial 159; Page 361 - Duplicate - serial 159; Page 362 - Duplicate - serial 159; Page 363 - Duplicate - serial 159; Page 364 - Duplicate - serial 159; Page 365 - Duplicate - serial 159; Page 366 - Duplicate - serial 159; Page 367 - Duplicate - serial 159; Page 368 - Duplicate - serial 159; Page 369 - Duplicate - serial 159; Page 370 - Duplicate - serial 159; Page 371 - Duplicate - serial 159; Page 372 - Duplicate - serial 159; Page 382 - b6; b7C; Page 383 - b6; b7C; Page 389 - b6; b7C; Page 390 - b6; b7C; Page 391 - b6; b7C; Page 392 - b6; b7C; Page 393 - Duplicate - serial 168; Page 394 - Duplicate - serial 168; Page 400 - b6; b7C; Page 401 - b6; b7C; EFTA01072513 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X Deleted Page(s) X X No Duplication Fee X X For this Page X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX EFTA01072514 Automated Serial Permanent Charge-Out FD-5a (1-5-94) Date: 03/06/07 Time: 11:04 Case ID: 31E-MM-108062 Serial: 71 Description of Document: Type : OTHER Date • ID9/"/" b3 To : From : MIAMI Topic: EXECUTED FGJ SUBPOENA Reason for Permanent Charge-Out: transfer to subpoena sub Transferred to: Case ID: 31E-MM-108062-SBP Serial: 7 b6 Employee: b7C 3/E, - /o7oeoa- EFTA01072515 FD-302 (Rev. 10-6-95) • -I- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 03/07/2007 date of birth b6 I I I I Social Security Account Number I was b7C interviewed at his place of emplovmentA I I I I P.t.lm Beach Gardens, Florida, telephoner- 'was advised of the identit of the interviewing agent and purpose of the interview. voluntarily provided the following information: I 'for Jeffrey Epstein on approximately' I Epstein visited the I 'once and' 'traveled to Epstein's Palm) Beach, Florida residence' I 'Epstein's residence were conducted tn !could not recall specific names of other individuals he encountered at Epstein's residence bur Advised that Pfletcin'Q I (name unknown) was present and I Massage Therapist-1- 1 Females in their mid-20's and unknown staff members were also observed at the residence during telephone' h performed massage py for Epstein and his staff members on numerous occasions. was frequently requested based on her skills as a massage papist. Fees were approximately $100.00 for a massage conducted J and $300.00 or higher' I. 1,3 136 b7C Investigation on 03/06/2007 at Palm Beach Gardens, Florida Ron 31E-MM-108062 Date dictated 03/07/2007 b6 by SA b7C This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the propeny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contcnts are not to be distributed outside your agency. .31g- b-uti - (nog? EFTA01072516  b6 0levAl-M-200” b7C FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Precedence: ROUTINE Date: 03/12/2007 To: Miami From: Miami PB2/PBCRA Contact: SA Approved By: Drafted By:• Case ID #: 31E-MM-108062 “ iny Title: JEFFREY EPSTEIN; WSTA - CHILD PROSTITUTION Synopsis: To remove writer as co-case agent. Details: Due to writer's transfer from the Miami Division, PBCRA, to FBIHQ, effective March 16, 2007, it is requested that writer be removed as co-case agent. •• 31g ag /O8O 0.2 - EFTA01072517  D£rol pt. eC (liev.01-31-2003) • b6 b7C FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Precedence: ROUTINE Date: 03/21/2007 To: Tampa Attn: SSAI Orlando RA From: Miami PB-2/PBCRA Contact: SA Approved By Drafted By: Case ID #: 31E-MM-108062 Irenaing) Title: JEFFREY EPSTEIN; WSTA - CHILD PROSTITUTION Synopsis: To request travel reference captioned matter. Administrative: Reference telcall between SA and SSA on 03/21/2007. Details: On 07/24/2006 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Palm Beach County Resident Agency (PBCRA), opened an investigation involving multi-millionaire Jeffrey Epstein and captioned subjects. The investigation involves numerous underage females who attended local high schools and were recruited for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity with Epstein. At the conclusion of the sexual activity, the minors were paid sums of money ranging from $200.00-$1,000.00. FBI Miami, PBCRA, request travel concurrence with FBI Tampa, Orlando RA for the nuroose of interviewing Victim/Witnessl lis currently " 'n Orlando Florida. SA's' land j will travel on 03/22/2007 to interview 3 I. E ^ Pir4- Ciecoa-H EFTA01072518 To: Tampa From: iami Re: 31E-MM-108062, 03/21/2007 LEAD(s): Set Lead 1: (Info) TAMPA AT ORLANDO. FL FBI Miami request travel concurrence from FBI Tampa to conduct victim/witness interview. •• EFTA01072519 FD-302 (Rev. 10-6-95) • b6 b7C -1- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 01/23/2007 was interviewed in the town of 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: According tol would either have to gglatalg..tr JLNU located out of the New York Office or speak with I I regarding matters that concerned Investigation on 01/18/2007 at Palm Beach, Florida mica 31F.-MM-108062 . Date dictated 01/18/2007 SA by SA This document contains neither recommendations nor conclu ions 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. 1-0-/D EFTA01072520  .4 • FD-302a (Rev. 10-6-95) • • b6 b7C 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 of ,On 01/18/2007 ,Page 2 compared I thought but LNU, a was more naive. , said that EPSTEIN was trying to make' ILNU more sophisticated. stated that there were many females that would come to the residence. A lot of the females that traveled with EPSTEIN looked European or Foreign. stated that the local girls who visited the residence appeared to be younger than those that EPSTEIN traveled with. I 'was not sure of the local girls' ages. When asked by the interviewing agent if they were under eighteen stated that' a girl at Royal Palm Beach High School and that some of the girls had car pooled together. The interviewing agent inquired of that meant hP believed wine of the girls were underage. I I 'stated that EPSTEIN' (for a local female, I I was unable to remember her name. The Unidentified Female(UF) was appearing in a high school( 'Royal Palm Beach High School. said that under EPSTEIN's instr crionI 'for the UF. He said it stated that he recalled one female that traveled with EPSTEIN that looked very young. He be]ieved her name was' LNU and that she was from California. I remembered h r n • 'dente on that one occasion. LNU was instructed by EPSTEIN to ta ILNU to 'said that EPSTEIN overall was a very private individual. I 'said that EPSTEIN would get massages everyday, sometimes morning and night. I 'was asked on EFTA01072521 FD-302a (Rev. 10-6-95) • • 31E-MM-108062 Comirmakme302of I I 01/18/2007 ,Page 3 b6 Mn b7C 'specifically remembered paying a ILNU. Idid not witness any sexual activity between the temales and EPSTEIN. When asked by the interviewing agent if had ever Ifor EPSTEIN I 'stated that he believed 'but that he had not. According to other than receiving Massages, EPSTEIN enjoyed getting ice cream from a local ice cream parlor with the girls. Under EPSTEIN's direction' 'would take the girls shopping. If EPSTEIN accompanied them he would stay in the vehicle. The girls would shop, find something they liked, place the items on hold, and later' purchase the items. I 'also had traveled to Istated that on occasion, EPSTEIN would allow some of the girls to drive one of his vehicles. stated that he had taken messages from females calling regarding providing massages to EPSTEIN. He also stated that an older female possibly in her thirties, named' lizru, would call the residence. I tEPSTEIN know that she had females for him. I 'could provide no other information about LNU. said that 'traveled to the residence with EPSTEIN on occasion. 'believed to be EPSTEIN's girlfriend, at first. However, when other females accompanied EPSTEIN, residence. said that he thought I 'also would try to find females for EPSTEIN. On one occasion,[ said that the only male visitor he could recall accompanying EPSTEIN to the residence wasp believed' EFTA01072522  • *re ED-302a (Rev. I0-6-95) • b6 b7C 31E-MM-108062 ContinuationotTD.M2d ,On 01/18/2007 ,Page 4 stated that he believed EPSTFIN wanted to be the center of attention with his female comoanions.I Itold the interviewing agents that] The females were laughing and appeared to be having a good time. EPSTEIN, (asked the females to join him in 'said that he believed EPSTEIN was jealous. also stated that he believed many of EPSTEIN's female compapions were looking to make somethtng of themselves and were seeking 'stated that he believed, in reality, they were accomplishing nothing. EFTA01072523 .1; FD-302 (Rev. 10-6-95) • • b6 b7C _1_ FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION' Date of transcription 02/04/2007 was interviewed in West Palm Beach, Florida regarding a federal investigation involving the sexual exploitation of minors. Also present during the interview was land Assistant United States AttorneyCH lof the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview I 'provided the following information: I IEPSTEIN's Palm Beach residence. His responsibilities includedr According to EPSTEIN traveled to Palm Beach via EPSTEIN's aircrafts, the Gulfstream or the Boeing 727. was not aware of EPSTEIN ever flying a commercial airline to Palm Beach. EPSTEIN visited his residence in Palm Beach once, twice and sometimes 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. I 'stated that EPSTEIN primarily travelpd to Palm Beach' I lcurrentivl I said that' (said that' 111ni—li I land Investigation on 02/02/2007 at West Palm Beach, Florida Facto 31E-MM-10ROfi2 Date dictated 02/02/2007 SP by SP 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. EFTA01072524  b6 FD-302a (Rev. 10-6-95) • • b7C 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 of I On 02/02/2007 ,Page 2 he main house. According to I the main house has six bedrooms and the Guest House has three bedrooms. Another individual that would come on a regular basis to the residence wasl 'believed that I IEPSTEIN would, on occasion, bring other guests with him when traveling to Palm Beach. I The signatures on the account were EPSTEIN, I was aware that many females would come to EPSTEIN's residence to provide EPSTEIN with massages. stated that EPSTEIN would receive one or two massages a day, sometimes even three. The massage times would be spread throughout the day. I 'said that none or the females providing EPSTEIN with a massage ever appeared upset. Istated that he believed EPSTEIN I arranged EPSTEIN's appointments for massages with the females. ' said some of the females who provided massages to EPSTEIN would leave messages. Messages were taken on message pads. On one occasion, when EPSTEIN 'asked to stated that EPSTEIN has a chiropractic table, as well as, a massage table. I EFTA01072525 FD-302a (Rev. 10-6-95) • • 31E-MM-108062 Continuation ofFD-302 of _I I .On 02/02/2007 "to 3 b6 b7C Isaid that' According tow not like the ways 'conducted himself. 'continued I stating that' 'could not remember to finish one task if he were asked to complete another task at or during the same time. Pursuant to a Grand Jury Subpoena, I 'supplied the b3 interviewing agents with a copy of Upon b6 review of the report with' he provided the following b7C information: EFTA01072526 FD-302a(Rag. 10-6-95) • • 31E-MM-108062 b6 I b7C ,0n02/02/2007 ,Pagc 4 Continuation of FD-302 of --4 b3 b6 b7C b6 b7C -Vile last time EPSTE/N was at the Palm Beach residence was prior to the execution of the State search warrant. I I also said that approximately three weeks before the execution of the State search warranty ILNU came to the residence) I EFTA01072527  b6 FD•302 (Rev. IG•6•95) b7C -I- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 01/22/2007 date of birth' 'Social count Number (SSAN4 ' residing atl I Palm Beach, Florida was contacted at his residence. A ter eing advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview,' 'provided the following information: 'was hired by Epstein through 'primary responsibility ILNU, and' ILNU as 'stated when a female guest arrived at the residence,' 'believed some of the girls were at the residence to provide Epstein with a massage.' 'remembered between 10-15 different local girls arriving at the residence. 'recalled some girls were more frequent quests than others. _jidentifiedl ILNU. The girls would stay at the residence between approximately 45-60 minutes. He recalled' 'contacted' 'telephone number I 'West Palm Beach, Florida. Investigation on 01/11/2007 . at Palm Beach, Florida cite" 31E-MM-108062 Date dictated SA 1 fiat by S 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. (3/5--A43/4.-/0110642-17 EFTA01072528 FD-302a (Rev. 10-6-95) • • b6 b7C 31E-MM-108062 Continuation ofFD-302 of • .on 01/11/2007 ,Page 2 After a brief telephone conversation with (stated ]would like to speak with one of the agents. SA' Isioke briefly with land explained the nature of visit. I agreed that Jwould voluntarily place the documents/reports in a sealed envelope and be escorted to Voluntarily, land the agents drove with the captioned records tol I The envelope was hand delivered by lfor the purpose of preserving the records. EFTA01072529  as-B-S*naCI) OS£-Od • "Wi z z• iteq t n FBI: `We still have a pending case' ggiozeD 0 4 cLitz, -d= a .(rct so ► EPSTEIN from 1/3 Attorneys say inertia in a CD E. g C21 r. ti ) Teenage girls were criminal case often points to g F4° m til and Donald Trump among a pending plea deal. tamiX n (th, PN5 rt.:I 2.; 33 his friends. recruited tO visit "It would not surprise me 4= O Cu OM = ;4:Lc "Highly unusual" is how Palm Beach Police Chief Mi- chael Reiter described State Epstein for massages and sex, police say. if something has happened thatb not reflected in the court file," said Dutko, such 4ggan os gt,,,E*F6a ri m's tI M s , 4E 3‘i tit Attorney Barry Krischer as an agreement that will be g 0A handling of the case in a bluntly critical letter to rather than fllei charges di- formalized later. Defense attorney Marc r. 8 q.01 rolcl-oo € u, ount Clipping in Space Below) Krischer last year before rectly against Epstein. Shiner said defense at- CD Epstein was indicted. Epstein's attorneys deny torneys sometimes put off 411§g s Reiter referred the mat- he had sex with underage overtly conducting discov- .& v= eci ter to the FBI to determine girls. The lawyers say the ery — deposing witnesses, gu. m, g 570 r'' NV whether any federal laws had girls' stories are not credible. requesting documents and Z 51 C 8a cr5 amm—m 3- co 0. =‘<,1 09as :1' 6 e,, CT = n Ct been violated. Epstein's allies But if the court file is any the like — because doing so -2 -cs, ,90rz O 9,,n. E., -a fr,tz,....m-_,,„, countered by attacking the chief personally and profes- sionally. indicator, they've made no ef- fort to depose the girls. Neither prosecutors nor creates more work for har- ried prosecutors who may become angry and not offer ..<6.. e. 0 me, O p.tpc .. •-• KY" in MO .5....§ 5,-, Frit,' " Boo „ l• C' ms D3 O 0 c OCI t = g. O I5 .-4• Reiter's department in- defense attorneys a plea deal. . ....- ro ' icairi< ?e us_ 2. .. vestigated Epstein for 11 sought to question "Sometimes defense law- months. Police sifted repeat- said Dutko, her attorney.. yers, knowing that, will try FW 5 — : CA edly through his trash and recruited teenage girls to vis- and do discovery without CFCCTIII1 .... 5.-•P v c.... . .. . conducted surveillance on it Epstein for massages and taking depositions," said -- 'St n• 1 ,,T to 2 a, Ohial•V'ell his five-bedroom, 712 / -bath, sexual activity, Palm Beach Shiner, a former prosecutor rn v . = 0 ri st • : g. a .,-. 7 ;:eD 'El: ii.i 7,234-square-foot home on police said, and presumably for 13 years. (130,4>g?2, WS t'll .1Z/ro t:i 0. 1— ciacr •.• the Intracoastal Waterway. would be a key witness. Instead, they may conduct M ,5-:• a ' (' At% int C? R @ Ph' 4 a ;e Ma . Police said Epstein paid Epstein's attorney Jack a below-the-radar probe such ng enl a W r) gItFgpAgo lg al p women and girls as young as 14 to give him erotic mas- Goldberger did not return phone messages. as having a private investiga- tor check out leads, he said. 2cLa P ff. g x E e." sages at his home. Police A source close to the case Shiner and others say a :g-tTE. ;EVig .911. c P thought there was probable suggested it is languishing plea deal for Epstein probably cause to charge him with pending a decision by the would result in pretrial inter- unlawful sex acts with a mi- FBI on whether to refer it to vention, in which a defendant nor and lewd and lascivious federal prosecutors. may be ordered to undergo molestation. "We still have a pending a psychological evaluation, 4. Epstein responded by case" FBI spokeswoman counseling or other condi- hiring a phalanx of lawyers. Judy Orihuela said Monday. tions in return for dropping ,One of them, Harvard law State Attorney Krischer the charge. k professor and author Alan did not return a call for com- Edmondson, spokesman t Dershowitz, provided the ment His spokesman, Mike for State Attorney Kriseher, 6 state attorney's office with Edmondson, declined to say said there is no plea offer information about alcohol whether federal investiga- and no request for the pros- Epstein %and marijuana use by some tors are delaying the Epstein ecution to show its cards. Money of the girls who said they case. But, he added, "if an- "Tb my knowledge, ifs manager in LI were with Epstein. other agency is looking at never happened before on a New York has i Prosecutors then referred something, we wouldn't want filed case," he said. powerful allies. `the case to the grand jury to step on their toes." 0 Parry kelle0pbpostcom --r EFTA01072530 (Rev.01-31.2003) • • b6 b7C FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Precedence: ROUTINE Date: 03/13/2007 To: Miami Attn: SSRA From: Miami Palm Bea/ County RA/PR-2 Contact: SA Approved By: Drafted By: Case ID #: 31E-MM-108062 Title: JEFFREY EPSTEIN; WSTA - CHILD PROSTITUTION Synopsis: To request assignment of co-case agent. Details: It is requested that SA be assigned as co-case agent to above captioned case. •• #O / 1 __ 4 , 54 45 e't)te-"‘ O1arlo 1 ec_ 3re- - 004- fore26,a _ EFTA01072531 r (Ray. 01-31-2003) • t 4-- 11

EFTA01100638.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 39 pages

Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04'08,'11 Page 1 of 39 EXHIBIT C Epstein vs. Edwards Undisputed Statement of Facts EFTA01100638  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08,11 Page 2 of 39 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No.: 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants, I 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). EFTA01100639  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 3 of 39 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 M. 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., 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 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 EFTA01100640  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 4 of 39 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 S.G, 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 tole. that Epstein would be up in a second. Epstein walked over to I and told her to take her clothes off in a stem voice. S. 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 on her thong panties. Epstein then instructed. to give him a massage. Ain 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, a. 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 EFTA01100641  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 5 of 39 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 Marie Villafaiia 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 EFTA01100642  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 6 of 39 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 thEM. was, in fact, a victim of Epstein's criminal abuse because Si. was one of the minor females that the United States Attorney's Office recognized as a victim. ■.'s sworn deposition testimony and the adverse inference drawn from Epstein's refusal to testify confirm that Epstein began sexually assaulting M. 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 vinth..?" A: [Invocation of the Fifth Amendment].); see also Epstein Depo., April 14, 2010, Attachment #6, at 456 ("Q: a 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 al. 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 U., beginning when she was 14 years old and did so on numerous occasions. Seel. Depo., Attachment #4 at 215-216. 10. Mother of the minor girls Epstein sexually assaulted was Jane Doe; the abuse began 5 EFTA01100643  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 7 of 39 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 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 mad' perform oral sex on him and was to perform sex acts orl (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; B. Depo., Attachment #3, at 416; E.W. 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, I. 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 EFTA01100644  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 8 of 39 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 11. When 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): in table. remembered that she climaxed and was removing herself from the massage asked for a sheet of paper and drew the massage table in the master bathroom and where Epstein, and she were. Epstein turned in on to her stomach on the massage bed and inserted his penis into her vagina. [St] stated Epstein began to pump his penis in her vagina. [S.] 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 ...." II] ] advised there were times that she was so sore when she left Epstein's house. advised she was ripped, torn, in her vagina area. I ] advised she had i ty 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 girlsallniampa, These girls were between the ages of 13 and 7 EFTA01100645  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 9 of 39 17 when Epstein abused them. See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit E; Deposition of E.W., 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 EFTA01100646  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 10 of 39 (Bill Clinton phone numbers listed under "Doug Bands"). Federal Investigation and Plea Agreement 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 Villafaila 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 E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards 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 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, Netelin—Mareirdereet with a similar grand jury subpoena. In fact, the agents were 9 EFTA01100647  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 11 of 39 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 Cit area, thereby keeping the Special Agents from serving the targliii , . During the flight, the defendant verbally harassed Ms. a, 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 AMMO 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 EFTA01100648  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 12 of 39 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 Villafafia wrote to Epstein's counsel, Jay Leflcowitz, "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 EFTA01100649  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 13 of 39 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 I) and Epstein. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A", at 40-42, 49-51; Deposition of /I 0, (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 E. and S. received letters from the FBI advising them that "[Otis 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 M. andM. that a plea agreement had already been reached that would block federal prosecution of Epstein. Nor did the FBI notify... and 0. of any of the parts of the plea agreement. Nor did the FBI or other federal authorities confer with E.W. and L.M. about the plea. See id. 30. In 2008, Edwards believed in good faith that criminal prosecution of Epstein was extremely important to his clients.. an I. 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 EFTA01100650  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 14 of 39 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 — M., , 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 ( .) 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./.; on July 2, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent Jane Doe; and, on . 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 Villafaila to inform her that he represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. AUSA Villafafia did not advise that a plea agreement had already been negotiated with Epstein's attorneys that would block federal prosecution. To the contrary, AUSA Villafafia mentioned a possible indictment. AUSA Villafa0a did indicate that federal investigators had concrete evidence and information that Epstein had sexually molested many underage minor females, includin Jane Doe. See id. at ¶4. 13 EFTA01100651  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 15 of 39 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 35. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA Villafalia 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 Villafafia called Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. AUSA Villafafia 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 — includin — 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 o See Emergency Petn. for Victim's Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights, No. 9:08-CV-80736-1CAM (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 o . That action alleged that the U.S. Attorney's Office had failed to provide slilli llmblothe rights to which they were entitled under the Act, including the right to be notified 14 EFTA01100652  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 16 of 39 about a plea agreement and to confer with prosecutors regarding it. See id. 38. O , Edwards tooll 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 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 "5") (in redacted form to protect the identities of the minors involved). 15 EFTA01100653  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 17 of 39 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 "fords 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 a, at the request of his client E., Brad Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault one Complaint, E. v. Epstein (Exhibit "U"). 46. On at the request of his client In., Brad Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of See Complaint, 1■ v. Epstein, (Exhibit "V"). 47. Jane Doe's federal complaint indicated that she sought damages of more than $50,000,000. 16 EFTA01100654  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 18 of 39 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, Mi 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 M, 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 EFTA01100655  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 19 of 39 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 la 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 EFTA01100656  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 20 of 39 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 BB (one in which Edwards was not 19 EFTA01100657  Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603-3 Filed 04/08/11 Page 21 of 39 participating), http://www.voutube.com/watch?v=V-dqoEvflx4; and http://www.voutube.com/watch?v=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 (hereinafter Mepo.") (Deposition attachment #14); Deposition of (Deposition attachment #9); Deposition o (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 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. a

EFTA00270166.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 3 pages

FD-1057 (Rev. 5-8-10) (Overall Document Classification Required) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Electronic Communication Title: (U//FOUO) TO SET LEADS FOR CAPTIONED Date: 01/14/2019 INVESTIGATION. Approved By: Drafted By: Case ID #: 31E-MM-NEW (U) EPSTEIN, JEFFREY Details: 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: SA Approved By: Drafted By: Case ID it: 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 obtained information from the City 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 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 wearing only her thong panties. During the massage, Epstein masturbated himself and touched the fourteen-year-old's vagina over her thong panties with a vibrator/massager. 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 girls described how contact was made via telephone, primarily with , Epstein's 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 (Overall Document Classification Required) EFTA00270166  (Overall Document Classification Required) Title: (U//FOLIO) TO SET LEADS FOR CAPTIONED INVESTIGATION. Re: 31E-MM-NEW, 01/14/2019 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 girl on how to conduct the massage. Epstein also would masturbate himself and, occasionally, manually fondle the vaginal area of the girl - sometimes over the panties, sometimes under the panties, and sometimes penetrating the girl's vagina. On most instances, Epstein also used a vibrator or massager on the girl's vaginal area, again sometimes over the panties and sometimes under the panties. When Epstein ejaculated, the "massage" was over and the girl was instructed to get dressed 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 girls were addressed to Epstein and others were addressed to , Epstein's assistant. Additional messages recovered during the search contained text confirming appointment times. During the PBCRA's investigation, the girls related that would contact the girls while and 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 investigation revealed that prior to the flights to Palm Beach, 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 (Overall Document Classification Required) 2 EFTA00270167  (Overall Document Classification Required) Title: (U//FO0O) TO SET LEADS FOR CAPTIONED INVESTIGATION. Re: 31E-MM-NEW, 01/14/2019 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 agent(s) contact SA FBI Miami, West Palm RA, I or SA for investigative direction and questions. LEAD(s): Set Lead 1: (Action) ALBUQUERQUE AT SANTA FE , NM Interview Bryce Gordon, ranch manager for Jeffrey Epstein's, Zorro Ranch, Stanley, New Mexico. Set Lead 2: (Action) SAN JUAN AT ST. THOMAS, U.S.V.I. Interview Miles Alexander, cellular telephone number of , residence telephone number , house manager for Jeffrey Epstein located on the island of Little St. James. Alexander was born in Capetown, South Africa. Set Lead 3: (Action) SAN JUAN AT ST. THOMAS, U.S.V.I. Locate and Interview Bruce White, boat captain, telephone number . This is the only information FBI Miami currently has on Mr. White. Set Lead 4: (Discretionary) JACKSONVILLE AT PENSACOLA, FL Interview , W/F, DOB SSAN , Milton, • • (Action) JACKSONVILLE AT PENSACOLA, FL Interview , housekee er, W/F, DOB SSAN .• (Overall Document Classification Required) 3 EFTA00270168

EFTA01105448.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 71 pages

1 G3hdgium 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 3 4 Plaintiff, New York, N.Y. 5 v. 15 Civ. 7433(RWS) 6 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, 7 Defendant. 8 9 March 17, 2016 2:18 p.m. 10 Before: 11 HON. ROBERT W. SWEET, 12 District Judge 13 APPEARANCES 14 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: SIGRID S. McCAWLEY 16 HADDON MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 17 Attorneys for Defendant BY: JEFFREY PAGLIUCA 18 LAURA A. MENNINGER 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105448 EFTA01105449  2 G3hdgium 1 THE COURT: Thank you all very much. I'm sorry for 2 the inconvenience that I have imposed upon you. I'm sorry 3 about the inconvenience that you have imposed upon me. 4 But having said all of that, this really is the first 5 time that we've had an opportunity, I think, to get together on 6 this case. And let me just say, I think -- I mean, I'm not 7 sure but I think I understand the difficulties of this case. 8 There is an emotional element, obviously, throughout the case 9 on both sides, and I understand that. Fortunately, we're 10 blessed by excellent counsel and it would be nice if they can 11 avoid adopting the emotional flavor of their clients, and I 12 presume that they will be able to do that, it certainly will 13 help, because these issues are going to be difficult and I'm 14 well aware of it. 15 Now, at the outset, there is some discussion in these 16 papers about meet and confer. Let me make clear what I would 17 like from this day forward. On any discovery issues, I would 18 like to have a meet and confer. Now, I understand that defense 19 counsel are living in God's country and they're not cursed with 20 the metropolitan residence. I salute their good judgment in 21 that. And so I will say that I will not require you to meet in 22 person, but I will require you to meet. 23 And I would say this. If you have a meet and confer, 24 I would like to have correspondence between the parties as to 25 what the subject is so that there is an agreed agenda that's SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105450 EFTA01105451  3 G3hdgium 1 written and we know that both sides know what it is, and that 2 will help me if, ultimately, the problem gets back to me. So I 3 would say exchange writing as to what it's going to be and have 4 a meeting. It doesn't have to be in person, but it certainly 5 has to be a significant meeting; it can't be just one 6 ten-minute telephone call. 7 So that's how I feel about the meet and confer. 8 Now, I'm not going to get into whether that's relevant 9 or not to the problems which we face today. That's just going 10 forward. As I say, I do hope that you all can -- it won't be 11 easy, but if you deal with these problems as the excellent 12 professionals that you are without the emotional implications, 13 having said that. 14 Now, how to go forward today? My thought is the 15 following. I have read your papers, and to say that I 16 understand the problems would be, I guess, a lie, but I'm 17 trying and you'll help me. I have a list of what I think our 18 issues are and I would like to go through this with you, and 19 then when I'm finished, if we have missed something, I'm sure 20 you will correct me. And I'd be pleased to hear if I determine 21 something, if you think that I'm wrong, that's fine, too. I 22 mean, you can tell me why you think I'm wrong. 23 Now, the first problem is the document -- the issue 24 about improper privilege claims. As I understand that issue, 25 it is the presence of Gow, Cohen and maybe somebody else as SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105452 EFTA01105453  4 G3hdgium 1 defeating the privilege, on the one hand. On the other hand, 2 the assertion by the defense that their participation as 3 whatever they are, managers, public relations people, whatever, 4 is necessary for the rendering of legal advice. 5 Parenthetically, there is a subtext there about whose 6 law applies. Let me say, I think we are going to apply New 7 York law in this case. British law may become relevant in some 8 way or other down the road, but for this privilege purpose, I 9 think that's where we are. 10 I think what I would like is I would like any 11 materials that -- the obligation to establish this privilege is 12 obviously Ms. Maxwell's, and I would like any materials that 13 she wants to present to me about these meetings to establish 14 that it was necessary for the rendering of legal advice, I'll 15 review those materials in camera and try to reach a decision. 16 I may need something further after I have looked at them, but I 17 think that's the way I ought to deal with that particular 18 privilege issue. 19 There is a list of documents as to which objections 20 have been made on a variety of bases. I will say probably a 21 catalog of every objection known to the mind of excellent 22 attorneys, and I think we will try to deal with those this 23 afternoon and maybe we'll fail, but let's put those aside just 24 for the moment. 25 The question about a protective order, of course there SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105454 EFTA01105455  5 G3hdgium 1 should be a protective order in this case. You are good 2 lawyers and you have been around this track more times than I 3 have and so you can prepare consensually a better protective 4 order than I can, and I urge you to do that. And, in fact, I 5 will give you two weeks to do that. Should you fail, you can 6 present whatever materials you wish to me and I will decide 7 what the protective order is going to be. That's not a good 8 idea because you know the case better than I do, obviously, and 9 so I urge you to resolve it by your litigation skills and not 10 leave it up to the ignorant district court judge who doesn't 11 really get into this kind of thing very often. So you run a 12 risk if you leave it to me. 13 Now, I would say two weeks, and then if you can't get 14 an agreement, maybe three weeks from now we wrestle with that. 15 Hopefully we won't. I have to do that. 16 The deposition -- the defendant of course will be 17 deposed, and we can work out right now when. Obviously, you 18 don't want that deposition until the protective order is 19 completed. So what do we do about that? Do you want to deal 20 with that today, the actual date of the deposition, or should 21 we pass that until we accomplish the protective order? What do 22 you all think about that? 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Can I be heard on that, your Honor? 24 This is Sigrid McCawley. I am counsel for Ms. 25 With respect to the deposition date, the 25th was the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105456 EFTA01105457  6 G3hdgium 1 date that my opposing counsel proposed as possibly being 2 available. So we set it for that date, which is next Friday. 3 We also offered to hold that deposition transcript confidential 4 until such time as the protective order could be issued so that 5 there is no barrier to us being able to take this deposition. 6 THE COURT: How about that? Is that OK? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Frankly, it is not, your Honor, and the 8 reason is we, clearly from the papers submitted so far and the 9 exchange of counsel, we have a significant disagreement at this 10 point as to what the word "confidential" actually means, and we 11 have proposed to the plaintiff a protective order that we 12 believe is appropriate and neutral -- 13 THE COURT: Well, maybe I can -- can we get over -- if 14 that's the primary issue on the protective order, can we deal 15 with that now? 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think there is a secondary -- well, 17 it may not even be secondary. There is another issue that is 18 directly related to that, your Honor, and that is the lack of 19 production of documents from the plaintiff. The Court has not 20 seen these papers yet, but there are in my view significant 21 deficiencies with the Rule 26 disclosures. There have been 22 failure to produce documents. And it is unfair at this point 23 to push these depositions forward without the required exchange 24 of discovery. 25 THE COURT: Let me ask the plaintiff. You really -- SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105458 EFTA01105459  7 G3hdgium 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Could I be heard on that? Thank you, 2 your Honor. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. 3 THE COURT: What do you think? 4 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. The issue is so I issued my 5 deposition notice before they even served discovery requests. 6 THE COURT: OK. All right. 7 MS. McCAWLEY: I've done 3,000 pages. They've done 8 two emails. 9 THE COURT: Look, doesn't it make sense to resolve any 10 document discovery issues perhaps before the deposition? 11 MS. McCAWLEY: I don't think so, your Honor. I want 12 the testimony of this defendant in order to move this case 13 forward. Our discovery closes in July. I issued my discovery 14 requests in October. I have not gotten the deposition of the 15 defendant yet. This is a date she is available. She is not 16 leaving the country. She is not going anywhere. I have her in 17 town next Friday. 18 I'll even agree to their protective order if it means 19 I can get her deposition, your Honor. I just need to get this 20 case moving forward. I need one deposition, the deposition of 21 the defendant in this case, who has called my client a liar. 22 We are entitled to depose her and see if she is going to answer 23 the questions about why she was 24 THE COURT: All right. OK. 25 MS. McCAWLEY: I am entitled to answers. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105460 EFTA01105461  8 G3hdgium 1 THE COURT: Well -- 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I think this is a good 3 meeting and it is a meeting that should have happened a long 4 time ago. Let me say to the Court that we proposed to meet 5 with plaintiff's counsel early on in this case to put together 6 a discovery schedule that made sense. We proposed that orally 7 and in writing. That proposal was ignored and rebuffed. And 8 counsel for the plaintiff then unilaterally scheduled a bunch 9 of depositions without conferring on dates. Unilaterally, 10 here's the dates, here are the depositions. We then tried to 11 work through that issue, at the same time trying to work 12 through the protective order issue and the document issue, and 13 we get no response. And I think the agenda here is to gain a 14 tactical advantage by not responding to these requests. 15 THE COURT: Well, I can't believe that lawyers would 16 seek a tactical advantage. I can't believe such a thing. 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: I am shocked. 18 THE COURT: OK. Tell you what we're going to do. 19 We'll -- three weeks, let's see. Her deposition -- this 20 question about document production, that hasn't been teed up, 21 so I don't know -- 22 MS. McCAWLEY: And can I be heard on that really 23 quickly? I mean, If that were the standard, that they could 24 wait to -- 25 THE COURT: No. It hasn't been teed up, I agree. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105462 EFTA01105463  9 G3hdgium 1 (Pause) 2 OK. Then I think what we should do is I'm assuming we 3 will resolve the protective order problem we've sort of slug 4 over the -- can we resolve what's confidential? Is that 5 possible? Could we do that this afternoon, or is that too 6 complicated? 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, I can have the deposition 8 of the defendant in this case and move this case forward. I 9 will agree to their protective order. I just want that 10 deposition. 11 THE COURT: Yes. 12 MS. McCAWLEY: It is that important to me. 13 THE COURT: I get your point. I understand that. But 14 at the same time, I think, given the nature of all that lies in 15 this, I think it is fair to say no side would like to have this 16 aired, and so we've got to have a protective order that 17 everybody feels comfortable with. 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, you can today enter the 19 protective order that they submit. I will disregard my 20 objections if I get the deposition. 21 THE COURT: Will you agree now to the protective 22 order? 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. If it means I can get her 24 deposition, yes, I will do that. 25 THE COURT: Oh, OK. Good. Well, that solved that. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105464 ( EFTA01105465  10 G3hdgium 1 MR. PAGLIUCA: It is not as simple as that, your 2 Honor, because this quid pro quo, I'll agree to their 3 protective order if I can have the deposition on the 25th, 4 doesn't solve the problem. 5 THE COURT: At least we've separated it. She has 6 agreed to the protective order. OK? So that's done. OK? 7 Now, why can't we have her deposition upon, whatever 8 it is, a week from Friday? 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Friday, the 25th, this coming Friday, a 10 week from tomorrow. 11 THE COURT: Oh, a week from tomorrow, yes. 12 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 13 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we served discovery 14 requests on plaintiff on February 12th. 15 THE COURT: Well, look, that's nice. That's good. 16 But I don't have that, and I think she's right that there is no 17 rule that says you have to get your discovery requests 18 satisfied before the deposition, so 19 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the responses were due 20 last night yesterday, so that is prior to Ms. Maxwell for the 21 25th. However, as a part of producing that discovery response, 22 they have said they're going to take a month to roll out their 23 production, not just 24 THE COURT: Look. I'll tell you what let's do. I 25 don't have that, but let's -- we'll hold the deposition date. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105466 EFTA01105467  11 G3hdgium 1 When we get through with the rest of this stuff, we'll find out 2 if there is something in particular that you want prior to next 3 Friday and see what that is and see if we can get it. How is 4 that? 5 (Pause) 6 OK. Who pays for what and counsel, all of that? 7 Those are interesting problems and who knows how they all come 8 out. I think all of that is best served by reserving them 9 until the conclusion of the case, which is what I shall do. 10 The plaintiff wants to produce on a rolling basis and 11 to amend or add to the privilege log as the production goes 12 forward. I don't see any problem with that. 13 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, that's actually the issue 14 I was just alluding to. I understand -- and I have said I 15 don't have a problem with plaintiff producing her documents 16 over the course of the month because she has said that it is a 17 hardship for her to produce them all last night, which is when 18 they were due. However, she's trying to take our client's 19 deposition in the middle of her rolling production, in other 20 words, show up at the deposition with the documents she happens 21 to get -- 22 THE COURT: That's what I'm saying. Maybe what we'll 23 do is to deal with the document production issue separately. 24 MS. MENNINGER: OK. 25 THE COURT: And if there are some documents that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105468 EFTA01105469  12 G3hdgium 1 really seem to be important and they cannot be produced, then 2 maybe we'll put over the -- we'll see how that works. 3 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, I may be able to short 4 circuit this. 5 THE COURT: Pardon me? 6 MS. McCAWLEY: I may be able to short circuit this a 7 little bit. We produced 3,000 pages last night. We are 8 continuing that production. We are moving as fast as we can. 9 We produced a privilege log with over 134 entries on it. We 10 are continuing to move that forward as quickly as we can. 11 With respect to her deposition, your Honor, I'm happy 12 to provide them in advance every document I will be using at 13 her deposition. In other words, if that is their issue, if it 14 means I can get her deposition next Friday, I will share with 15 them any document I intend to use at that deposition. 16 THE COURT: That seems to solve the problem, don't you 17 think? 18 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I have to disagree. I got 19 this responsive objection last night at 9:30 p.m., while I was 20 here in New York. I've taken a look at it, and I can give your 21 Honor a sense of the types of objections that plaintiff has 22 lodged to our document request. For example, their client sold 23 her diary to Radar Online. It was published on Radar Online. 24 This diary contains plaintiff's allegations against my client. 25 So I asked for the diary that was sold to Radar Online. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105470 EFTA01105471  13 G3hdgium 1 THE COURT: You get it. 2 MS. MENNINGER: It is copyright and proprietary 3 protected. We're not going to produce it. So that's the kind 4 of example -- 5 THE COURT: No. You get it. 6 MS. McCAWLEY: She doesn't have a diary. She might be 7 referring to something else. I mean, my client doesn't have a 8 diary to produce. She doesn't have one. Those were 9 handwritten notes that she gave a reporter. She doesn't have 10 one. 11 THE COURT: So you are saying -- 12 MS. McCAWLEY: That request is broader. I mean 13 THE COURT: No. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: I didn't know we were going to be 15 addressing my requests today -- 16 THE COURT: as to the diary, you say it doesn't 17 exist. There is no diary, there are no notes, and whatever 18 there is has been the subject of the printed material? 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 20 MS. MENNINGER: Excerpts -- excerpts, your Honor, with 21 my client's name on them in plaintiff's handwriting were sold 22 to Radar Online, not the entire document. And when I asked for 23 the entire document, I was told that it is proprietary and 24 copyright protected. 25 THE COURT: What is "proprietary"? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105472 EFTA01105473  14 G3hdgium 1 MS. McCAWLEY: I think she's referring to a broader 2 request. My client doesn't have a diary, which is what she's 3 addressing right now. I don't have my requests in front of me, 4 your Honor. We were here on their requests. But if you want 5 to read the whole request, I can try and remember what 6 THE COURT: What are we talking -- 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Did they say I was withholding 8 documents? I don't think I said I was withholding documents on 9 that request. But, again, I don't have it in front of me and I 10 apologize. 11 MS. MENNINGER: The request number 16 reads: "Any 12 diary, journal, or calendar concerning your activity between 13 '96 and '02." 14 Response: Ms. ejects to this request to the 15 extent it seeks proprietary- and copyright-protected material. 16 Ms. objects in that it seeks information protected by 17 the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product 18 privilege, the joint defense, interest privilege, the agency 19 privilege, the investigative privilege, the spousal privilege, 20 the accountant/client privilege, and any other applicable 21 privilege." 22 THE COURT: Hot dog. I tell you, that's great. 23 MS. McCAWLEY: But did I say I didn't have -- 24 THE COURT: Shall we use that as the standard 25 objection to every document request and then let's forget about SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105474 EFTA01105475  15 G3hdgium 1 it? OK, let's do this. 2 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, may I be heard on just one 3 point on this issue? 4 If the standard were that someone could wait in a case 5 to request documents and then push off depositions by 6 continuing to file new requests, it's apparently -- 7 THE COURT: Yes. I hear you. I understand that 8 point. Look, obviously if there are documents that are covered 9 by the privilege, they have to be identified and logged. So 10 that's the privilege. 11 I don't know, what is this proprietary thing? What is 12 that all about? 13 MS. McCAWLEY: To the extent she has commercially 14 valuable material that she has written, that's covered by -- 15 it's covered by the protective order basically, that it would 16 be produced in a confidential format with a copyright-protected 17 format. So it is a general objection -- 18 THE COURT: So she will produce that, she will produce 19 everything -- 20 MS. McCAWLEY: If she has something like that, yes. 21 Like I said, we produced 3,000 pages yesterday. 22 THE COURT: And calendars and all of the rest of them? 23 MS. McCAWLEY: To the extent she has any of that, we 24 will produce it, your Honor. 25 THE COURT: All right. In other words, you are going SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105476 EFTA01105477  16 G3hdgium 1 to produce everything except anything that you have that you 2 claim privilege as to which you will log? 3 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. We have been logging -- 4 THE COURT: Well -- 5 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, on this particular one, 6 she says her client does not have any nonprivileged documents 7 created during the time period responsive to this request, and 8 then there are no privileged documents related to this log on 9 the privilege log. So I don't have any way to read this 10 request in a privilege log and figure out whether there are 11 noncopyright materials that weren't withheld or there are 12 privileged because all of these privileges were raised -- 13 THE COURT: I take it that what's being said is that 14 she has no privileged documents that would be covered by that 15 request? 16 MS. MENNINGER: That's not what the objection says. 17 And, your Honor, since she sold her handwritten notes about my 18 client to Radar Online, I know they exist because they were 19 excerpted on the Internet. 20 THE COURT: Yes, but she said she doesn't have them. 21 She said -- I mean, correct me if I am wrong. 22 MS. McCAWLEY: No, she doesn't have them. But, your 23 Honor, I am happy to have -- first of all, she hasn't conferred 24 on these issues that we are talking about here today. I am 25 happy to address them fully. I feel very comfortable with our SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105478 EFTA01105479  17 G3hdgium 1 discovery production in this case. We will continue to roll it 2 out; we have done it timely. Unlike like the defendants, who I 3 served their discovery requests October 27th, your Honor. We 4 are now in March. I received two emails, two emails in 5 response. I produced 3,000 pages -- 6 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, she is -- 7 (Unintelligible crosstalk) 8 THE COURT: Ladies, we're not going to get anywhere if 9 we "who struck John." 10 MS. McCAWLEY: I understand, your Honor. 11 I think I proposed something very fair by saying that 12 I would share with her any document I intend to use at that 13 deposition. I just need the deposition. 14 THE COURT: I understand. I got you. OK. 15 Now, you will identify any document -- I mean, you 16 tell them -- give them any documents that you are going to use 17 in the deposition. 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. 19 THE COURT: OK. Now, is there -- the business of this 20 production on -- you are going to have to -- well, wait a 21 minute. Let me put it this way. The objections to this 16 are 22 overruled except for the privilege. OK? 23 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I've proposed dates for my 24 client to be available in two or three weeks, once we have 25 received a complete document production, which was due last SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105480 EFTA01105481  18 G3hdgium 1 night, and I have been told we're not going to talk about dates 2 in two or three weeks. We haven't asked to set them out into 3 May or June. We've just asked for the documents that were due 4 last night to be produced to us before our client's deposition. 5 This isn't some kind of game. It's just she's been litigating 6 this case for seven years -- 7 THE COURT: OK. Well, we've dealt with the first 8 objection. Now, is there another one? 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. So we're here on my motion to 10 compel production of documents. I am just getting a little 11 confused because I don't -- we are here -- my motion to compel 12 production of documents from her based on my request that -- 13 THE COURT: Let's not worry about the -- 14 MS. McCAWLEY: OK. I just wanted to be clear. I 15 don't have in front of me the request that she is referring to. 16 THE COURT: OK. Anything else that you think you need 17 besides the documents she is going to use, the response to 16? 18 Anything else -- 19 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor -- 20 THE COURT: -- that is critical for the deposition? 21 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, these were filed last 22 night at 9:30 p.m., the 3,000 pages were produced to my office, 23 which is in Colorado. I haven't looked at the 3,000 pages that 24 were produced last night. I will have to ask leave of the 25 Court to go back, look at the documents that were produced and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105482 EFTA01105483  19 G3hdgium 1 see what I am missing. 2 THE COURT: All right. If you want to, you can come 3 back on Thursday next week and we can argue about whether or 4 not the deposition should go forward on Friday. 5 MS. MENNINGER: OK. 6 THE COURT: That is all right with me. 7 MS. MENNINGER: That is acceptable, your Honor. 8 THE COURT: OK. So maybe we've solved that problem. 9 OK. Maybe. 10 Now, on the improper objections by the defendants. I 11 suppose I can assume that the defendants' objections are just 12 exactly the same as the plaintiff's objections. 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: No, your Honor. They are not. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: Oh, I'm sorry. This is my motion to 15 compel. Can I just address it initially so that I can lay out 16 for the Court what the issues are that we are raising on the 17 motion to compel? 18 THE COURT: I'm sorry. 19 MS. McCAWLEY: This is my motion to compel now. Can I 20 address -- am I able to address that? 21 THE COURT: Yes. 22 MS. McCAWLEY: So with respect to our motion to compel 23 the documents from the defendant, as you know, your Honor, 24 there are two main objections that I think have to be overcome 25 in order for us to get that production properly. The first SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105484 EFTA01105485  20 G3hdgium 1 main objection is the fact that they are objecting to the time 2 period. So we have sought requests from 1999, which is in 3 around the time when my client contends she was involved with 4 these individuals, to the present. They objected that that 5 time period is overly broad. They only agreed to produce for 6 the period of 1999 to 2002 and for one month, from December 31, 7 2014 to January 31, 2015. So they cut out all the years in 8 between and anything post January 31, 2015. 9 Now, with respect to your Honor maybe saying why would 10 that time period be relevant, the entire time period is 11 relevant for a number of reasons. First, in 1999, that's when 12 my client first recalls being -- 13 THE COURT: We can agree think we can agree at 14 the outset that '99 to what is it? 15 MS. McCAWLEY: 2002. 16 THE COURT: 2002 is relevant. 17 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. 18 THE COURT: So what we're talking about is the what 19 happened in 2002? 20 MS. McCAWLEY: My client was sent to Thailand by 21 Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell for a training and to pick up 22 another -- 23 THE COURT: So she is no longer -- 24 MS. McCAWLEY: And she left. She fled to Australia. 25 THE COURT: OK. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105486 EFTA01105487  21 G3hdgium 1 MS. McCAWLEY: So with respect to these requests, I 2 just want to -- you know, because the Court has mentioned this 3 and it is worthy of referencing, that if you look at the 4 defendants' request to us, they actually request a longer time 5 period; they request from 1996 to the present. So while they 6 don't want us to -- they don't want to produce to us except for 7 that short window, they are requesting the entire period. In 8 some cases they request and I did a chart. Your Honor, 9 would you mind if I just pass this up to you for reference? 10 THE COURT: OK. 11 MS. McCAWLEY: I did a chart, I believe it is on page 12 10, and it has for you the various requests and what the time 13 periods are, and for many of the requests there is no time 14 period at all. 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: I have it. I don't need it. 16 MS. McCAWLEY: Oh, you have that? 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: I do not need it. 18 MS. McCAWLEY: OK. I'm sorry. 19 So that time period shows that many of those requests 20 don't have a time period at all; so it is even broader, from 21 infancy to present. So, in fairness, our requests are 1999 to 22 the present, which we believe is the critical time period. 23 Now, what happens in 2002? So my client does flee to 24 Australia away from these individuals, but the conduct 25 continues. So we have, for example, the law enforcement trash SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105488 EFTA01105489  22 G3hdgium 1 pulls that show the message pads of the back and forth of 2 arranging these underaged minors to come for massages, things 3 of that nature. We have the flight logs that show Ms. Maxwell 4 flying 360 times with Jeffrey Epstein, 20 of which were with my 5 client when she was underage. We have the Palm Beach police 6 report, which shows over 30 minors who reported during that 7 time period, to up until now 2006, being abused in that 8 circumstance in Palm Beach. Then we have the arrest that 9 happens of Jeffrey Epstein in 2006. 10 Thereafter, my client in 2008 is -- I'm sorry, she 11 receives from the U.S. government a victim notification letter. 12 At that point, in 2009, Ms. Maxwell's deposition is sought in 13 underlying civil cases. She flees from that deposition, says 14 her mother is ill in England, she has to leave the country, 15 cannot be deposed. She then shows up three weeks later at 16 Chelsea Clinton's wedding. So clearly she was around, she was 17 able to do something, but she avoided that deposition. Her 18 testimony was never taken in that case. 19 So that's in 2009. Then we have in 2011 my client is 20 interviewed by the FBI about the issues that have happened. 21 Then we have in 2011 Ms. Maxwell starts issuing different 22 statements to the press. She continues that, issues a 23 statement in 2015, which is the statement that we are here 24 about in this case. 25 So I contend, your Honor, that all of those years have SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105490 EFTA01105491  23 G3hdgium 1 relevant information in them with respect to my client. 2 THE COURT: OK. I understand. 3 Let's hear from the defendant. 4 MR. PAGLIUCA: So, your Honor, I have tried to refrain 5 from responding in kind, but the problem here is all of this -- 6 the agenda behind all of this is not really the issue in this 7 case but it is to make inflammatory statements like counsel 8 just made as fact when they are speculation, at best, your 9 Honor, and to pack into the record things that are demonstrably 10 not true but counsel says them like they are true and then 11 refers to her own declaration to support the fact of what she 12 is saying may or may not be true. So let's get to the issue 13 here in terms of the relevant timeframe. 14 First, the plaintiff goes to Thailand on her own 15 volition, gets married, and moves to Australia, where she 16 resides for some 12/13 years after, and has no contact with 17 Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein. So everything that happens from 18 2002 forward has absolutely nothing to do with the plaintiff in 19 this case, and she has absolutely no personal knowledge about 20 what did or didn't happen in Florida or elsewhere from that 21 timeframe forward. 22 You know, I carefully, your Honor, read your ruling on 23 the motion to dismiss, and I believe that you characterized the 24 issue in this case very narrowly, and that is is what the 25 plaintiff said about Ms. Maxwell, and from 1999 to 2002, true SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105492 EFTA01105493  24 G3hdgium 1 or not. Those two individuals have the facts that relate to 2 that, and anything outside of that, quite frankly, is opinion 3 and not a subject matter of this litigation. 4 Now, you have to focus not only on this expansive 5 timeframe in which the plaintiff is not even in this 6 hemisphere, which is combined with the overbroad requests that 7 don't ask for things that might be arguably relevant under a 8 404(b) analysis -- you know, for example, did this happen with 9 Ms. Maxwell and someone else in 2005, let's say -- those aren't 10 what the requests are. The requests are for all communications 11 for 17 years with plug in the individual, all documents 12 relating to whatever you want to plug in there for 17 years. 13 And so those two things combined create a grossly overbroad and 14 unmanageable document request. Hence, the objections. 15 Now, had we had the ability to confer about this, we 16 may have been able to get down to, here, these are really the 17 relevant timeframes, or you need to modify your requests for 18 production to say things like any communication with Jeffrey 19 Epstein related to the plaintiff, any communication with this 20 person related to the plaintiff. But that's not what the 21 requests are. And so what you are left with is an unmanageable 22 pile of requests for production of documents. 23 I will note, your Honor, so the Court has this in 24 context, there are 39 requests that have been proposed to 25 Ms. Maxwell. She has no responsive documents, and I've so SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105494 EFTA01105495  25 G3hdgium 1 indicated to 17 of those requests. So we then winnow this down 2 to the ones that we are objecting to for very good reason. The 3 timeframe we have proposed is the appropriate timeframe. If 4 there are narrowly tailored requests for production for 5 something that may be relevant outside that timeframe, then 6 they should propose that and not what they are proposing 7 currently, which makes the entire process unwieldy and 8 unreliable. 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, the underlying issue in 10 this case is whether or not Ms. Maxwell lied when she said my 11 client was not subject to the abuse that she said she was 12 subject to. So in order to prove that, for defamation with 13 malice, we have to prove that my client was abused by these 14 individuals, that these individuals did take advantage of her 15 in the way that she expressed. 16 What's relevant to that is the sexual trafficking 17 ring. If after my client left they are also trafficking other 18 underaged girls repetitively, that is relevant to prove the 19 truth of my client's allegations as well. We are entitled to 20 that in discovery, your Honor. One of the requests is the 21 documents relating to communications of Jeffrey Epstein. If 22 she is e-mailing Jeffrey Epstein about the girls she's going to 23 send over to him in 2004, before he is arrested, that's 24 relevant to my client's claim, your Honor. So we shouldn't be 25 told that we're not entitled to these documents or that we're SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105496 EFTA01105497  26 G3hdgium 1 only entitled to two emails out of all of our requests. 2 In addition, he says that there are 17 requests that 3 they have no documents for, your Honor, but, again, they have 4 restricted the time period to this very short window and then 5 they answered in their responses. OK. So -- 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: That is not true. If you read -- 7 actually read the response, there is no restriction because we 8 have looked and there are no documents. We're actually trying 9 to move this ball forward, your Honor, and what's happening 10 here is we keep getting sucked back into this morass of maybe 11 something happened. If you listen to the words that counsel is 12 saying, your Honor, it is very illustrative of the fishing 13 expedition. If there is this, then it is relevant. But that 14 is not what they are asking for. And you have to go back to 15 the request. "All documents" -- Request No. 1: "All documents 16 relating to communications with Jeffrey Epstein from 1990 to 17 present." Well, that's not all documents concerning 18 trafficking or underaged girls, that's all documents relating 19 to, which could be anything in the universe. 20 Those are the reasons why I objected. 21 Request No. 3: "All documents relating to 22 communications with Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of 23 York, from 1990 to present." You know, what the heck does a 24 communication with the Duke in 2013, any old communication, 25 have to do with anything in this case? Nothing. If you SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105498 EFTA01105499  27 G3hdgium 1 said -- if you give me a request for production of documents 2 that said give me any documents that talk about your press 3 release with the Duke, well, that might be relevant and 4 discoverable, but these are grossly overbroad. 5 If they had conferred with us, we would have been able 6 to narrow this down, but they haven't because there is an 7 agenda here that, quite frankly, I don't understand, your 8 Honor. But what I think it is is to simply pack the record, 9 the written record and the oral record, with these very 10 specious, quite frankly, disgusting allegations about my 11 client, and that's not what we're here for. If they want 12 something, they should ask for it specifically. If they just 13 want to, you know, kind of throw things around -- if this, then 14 that -- then that's what we're about here. 15 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor -- 16 THE COURT: All right. I think I understand this 17 issue. 18 What else do we have? We have the timeframe and the 19 specificity. 20 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. So, your Honor, there is the 21 timeframe for the request, and then, right, I assume that they 22 are alleging that these are overbroad in some way as 23 THE COURT: I would rather think I just heard that. 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Right. Exactly. So, your Honor, just 25 to touch on that very quickly. Not only -- and you will see it SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105500 EFTA01105501  28 G3hdgium 1 in our papers, but we also give specific examples of why these 2 are relevant, for example, and not overbroad. For example, two 3 of the people we asked for documents and communications with, 4 and , when they were asked in 5 their depositions about Ms. Maxwell sexually trafficking 6 underaged girls, both of those individuals took the Fifth. If 7 there are documents between Ms. Maxwell and 8 discussing those issues at any time from 1990 to present, we 9 want those documents, your Honor. And while they say that 10 day-to-day communications with Jeffrey Epstein wouldn't be 11 relevant, they would. If they're communicating on a daily 12 basis, that's relevant. 13 THE COURT: I understand that point. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: So, your Honor, those are the two key 15 issues as I understand it, the time period and then the 16 overbreadth of the request, that they have been objecting to. 17 And, your Honor, we just obviously want discovery in 18 this case to move it forward. 19 THE COURT: All right. So we've got that. I 20 understand that. Is there any other broad category? 21 MS. McCAWLEY: No. Those are the two issues, as I 22 understand it, the date range which they've limited -- 23 THE COURT: If we resolve those two, have we resolved 24 the objections to the document demand? 25 MS. McCAWLEY: That's my understanding, that they SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA01105502 EFTA01105503  29 G3hdgium 1 should be produc

EFTA00085291.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 390 pages

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 TESTIMONY 16 OF 17 18 19 20 21 APPEARANCE: 22 ASSISTANT U. S. ATTORNEY FOREPERSON 23 COURT REPORTER 24 25 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (954) 467-8204 EFTA00085291  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 , Registered Merit Reporter and Notary 8 Public was authorized to and did report the sworn 9 testimony. 10 Thereupon, 11 12 a witness of lawful age, having been first duly sworn by 13 the foreperson, testified on her oath as follows: 14 BY MS. VILLAFANA: 15 Q , 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 in OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE EFTA00085292  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 EFTA00085293  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 EFTA00085294  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. -- Ms. 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 EFTA00085295  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 EFTA00085296  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 has 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 is 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 EFTA00085297  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. , who is a 8 pilot of Mr. Epstein's, and we have received 9 documentation from 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 19 , we actually have issued three subpoenas, 20 and we are still working on resolving her Grand Jury 21 material as well as testimony. 22 We have issued a 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 EFTA00085298  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 , another pilot for 21 Mr. Epstein, we have spoken with him. 22 we have issued a Grand Jury subpoena to 23 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 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE EFTA00085299  10 1 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 EFTA00085300  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 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 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 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 EFTA00085301  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 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 WITNESS: 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 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 EFTA00085302  13 1 walls is confidential. 2 BY 3 Q Now, ! 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 EFTA00085303  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 5 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 24 Q one of the Grand 25 Jurors asked whether there was any evidence of force or OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE EFTA00085304  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 victims 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 EFTA00085305  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, 1 would have to go and count, but I 25 would say in the state investigation there were over 25 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE EFTA00085306  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 12 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 EFTA00085307  18 1 Did anybody, have you interviewed anybody who 2 affirmatively told you that they told their 3 age or what was going on behind closed doors? 4 A No, no, not at this time, not at this time. 5 Q 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 was 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 Okay. 24 A GRAND JUROR: what was the actual age range 25 of these girls? OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE EFTA00085308  19 1 THE WITNESS: 14 to I mean. 2 A GRAND JUROR: The other one was, how did Ms. 3 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 , 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 EFTA00085309  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 $200 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 EFTA00085310  21 1 that's pretty much where we start off. 2 Would the Grand Jury like 3 to 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 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 5, to 11 maintain custody? 12 A GRAND JUROR: Yes. 13 : 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 : 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 EFTA00085311  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 )efore the Federal Grand Jury, 7 West Palm Beach, Florida on the 6th day of February, 8 2007. 9 10 11 Notary Public 12 Commission . 13 Expires May 8, 2008 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE EFTA00085312 • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA IN RE: OPERATION LEAP YEAR Federal Grand Jury, 07-103 West Palm Beach, Florida February 27, 2007 APPEARANCES: ESQUIRE Assistant United States Attorney Foreperson ORIGINAL EFTA00085313  Page 2 1 The sworn testimony of 2 was taken before the Federal Grand Jury, West Palm 3 Beach Division, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, 4 State of Florida, on the 27th day of February, 2007. 5 Court Reporter, was authorized to 6 and did report the sworn testimony. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA00085314  Page 3 (The witness entered the grand jury room.) 2 3 having been duly sworn by the grand jury foreperson, 4 was examined and testified on her oath as follows: 5 EXAMINATION 6 BY 7 Q Good morning, . Could 8 you restate and spell your name for the record. 9 A It's 10 11 Q Can you remind the grand jury who you are 12 employed by? 13 A The FBI. 14 Q I know that you testified here a few weeks ago. 15 Was there anything from that testimony that you wanted to 16 correct? 17 A I did. I was asked by one of you Mr. Epstein's 18 age, and I confused him with another individual in another 19 one of my cases. His birthdate is January 20, 1953. We 20 are looking at the time period of 2004 and 2005. So 21 Mr. Epstein would have been about 51 or 52-years-old, and 22 I believe I told you he was 45. So at the time we're 23 looking during this investigation, he is 51 or 52. 24 Q , how did this case first come 25 to the attention of the police? EFTA00085315  Page 4 1 A In March of 2005, our youngest 2 identified victim -- called the Palm Beach 3 police department and reported that she believed that her 4 had been molested by a male that resided in 5 the town of Palm Beach. 6 So today we are going to talk about 7 A Yes. 8 Q And we are using her initial to protect her 9 identity, correct? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Can you tell the grand jury date of 12 birth? 13 A birthday is 14 Q And you mentioned that the call came in ttom 15 in March of 2005, correct? 16 A Yes. 17 Q So how old was at that time? 18 A She was 14. 19 Q Where does live? 20 A lives in the Loxahatchee-Royal Palm Beach 21 area here in Palm Beach County. 22 At the time, in 2005, what school was she 23 attending? 24 A 25 Q What year was she in school? EFTA00085316  Page 5 1 A She was a ninth-grader there. 2 Q You mentioned that her called the 3 Palm Beach police department. What did the police 4 department do in response to that call? 5 A They wanted to interview I believe it was 6 the next day they went out to where =Gas attending 7 school at that time, which I think was They 8 interviewed at d wanted to get her side 9 of what took place. 10 Q Because we'll be referring to this throughout, 11 what was the name of the detective who conducted that 12 first interview? 13 A Detective 14 Q So in March of 2005, detective talked with 15 Was ever interviewed at any other times? 16 A Yes. She was interviewed -- they talked to her 17 again. She placed some controlled calls for them later 18 that month, we will talk about that later. As well as 19 she was interviewed about a year later in July of 2006. 20 Not interviewed, but she testified before the grand jury 21 for the State of Florida. So she was interviewed by 22 detective Pagan in March of 2005, and then about a year or 23 three or four months later, in July of 2006, she testified 24 before a grand jury with the State of Florida. 25 Q In preparation for your appearance today, did EFTA00085317  Page 6 1 you have a chance to interview 2 A Yes, I did. 3 Q And when was that? 4 A Last night. 5 Q Back in March of 2005, you mentioned that 6 detective met with on or more than one 7 occasion? 8 A Yes. 9 Q If you could give us sort of an overview of what 10 reported during these interviews, and then if there 11 are specific discrepancies or differences, we will return 12 to those later. 13 A All right. On February 5, 2005, it was a 14 Saturday, and was at house, She 15 was there with her boyfriend, And because these 16 are minors, we'll refer to them without using their last 17 names, so I'll use those initials. 18 They were at residence, and is 19 boyfriend, which is also cousin. So they 20 were all at house, and was on the phone with 21 an individual that prefers to as the assistant. 22 described the assistant as a tall blonde. 23 So throughout I'll refer to her as the blonde lady, if 24 that's okay. was unable to recall her name. So 25 is on the phone with the assistant for Jeffrey EFTA00085318  Page 7 1 Epstein. 2 and overhear on the phone 3 describing (describing to the lady on 4 the phone. So when gets off the phone, and 5 both want to know why was being described to 6 this lady on the phone. Zach becomes upset when 7 asks if she would like to go to Palm Beach and give a 8 man a massage that she knows. agrees, and this 9 upsets'''. and an argument ensues wherell'Illand 10 go into the bathroom and they argue outside the presence 11 of 12 Q Let me stop you there. Was supposed to be 13 paid for giving this massage? 14 A Yes. told that she would be paid 15 $200 or $300, I believe. 16 0 You mentioned that is boyfriend, and 17 Zach is also cousin, correct? 18 A Yes. 19 Q What was idea about why they were 20 arguing? 21 A She has told us that she believed that must 22 have known what was doing for this man and the work 23 that did for Mr. Epstein, and that is why was 24 so upset. 25 Q So knew that this wasn't just a regular EFTA00085319  Page 8 1 massage that was going to take place? 2 A Yes. 3 Q So and have this argument. What does 4 decide to do? 5 A decides to go. 6 Q Because she wanted to make the $200 or $300? 7 A Yes. 8 Q So tell us then what happened after that 9 meeting? 10 A The next day, February 6 -- they discussed that 11 evening about going the next day. We do have on 12 phone records two calls that were placed. One was placed 13 to Kellin's cell phone, and the other was placed to 14 Jeffrey Epstein's residence the night of February 5. 15 The next day is contacted a couple of times 16 before arrives. Each time prior to being 17 contacted by a call is placed by to 18 Kellin's cell phone. Kellin, I should tell you, is 19 Jeffrey's assistant. 20 So on Sunday a call was placed to Kellin, 21 and then shortly after that a call was made to That 22 same series occurs again, but this timeillilliplaces a 23 call to Mr. Epstein's residence, and then is called 24 again. 25 Eventually, comes to residence with EFTA00085320  Page 9 another girl in the car, So the two of them 2 arrive at residence, and they continue over to 3 Mr. Epstein's house. 4 Q is driving with and . Do you know how they were sitting? A You know, I'm not sure how they were sitting, 7 but I know that it was a pickup truck that drove, 8 and was the driver. I'm not sure exactly the 9 placement of the other two girls, but they were in the 10 truck. 11 Q And ■ was able to describe how they travelled 12 to the island of Palm Beach? 13 A Yes. She gave directions -- you know, the best 14 that she could on how she was able to come to 15 Mr. Epstein's residence. 16 Once they arrived at the residence, what 17 happened? 18 A I should have mentioned that either the night 19 before or the day of, there were some things that 20 tells One, she tells that she is to tell, if 21 asked, that she is 18-years-of-age, that she attends high 22 school, that she's in the 12th grade, and I believe it was 23 Wellington High School that she was to say that she went 24 to. 25 Talking to last night, told us that EFTA00085321  Page 10 1 once she arrived at the residence tells her that she 2 may possibly be asked to take her clothes off. She also 3 tells her that she can stay in her bra, but she may be 4 asked to take her clothes off. And told us last 5 night that that's when she knew for the first time that 6 she might have to possibly remove her clothes. 7 At this point they proceed to enter the 8 residence. =describes him as a security person. He 9 approached and asked what they were doing there, and 10 said they were there to see Mr. Epstein, or see Jeffrey. 11 He allowed them entry into the kitchen area by the pool, 12 and describes that area. So now and 13 are all sitting in the kitchen. A short time goes 14 by and Mr. Epstein, as well as the assistant, enter the 15 kitchen. 16 Q And I know that you mentioned that did not 17 know the name of the lady who was there in the kitchen, 18 correct? 19 A Right. 20 Q She just described her as a blonde, tall lady? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Was also interviewed about what happened 23 that day? 24 A She was interviewed by the Palm Beach police 25 department. EFTA00085322  Page 11 1 Q Did identify the person who was on the 2 phone with her as 3 A Yes, she did. 4 Q So even though ■ doesn't know her name, 5 knew Hame? 6 A Yes. 7 Q So you mentioned that the three girls are in the 8 kitchen, along with Jeffrey and the person ■calls the 9 blonde lady? 10 A Yes. 11 Q What happened then? 12 A follows the blonde lady upstairs to 13 Mr. Epstein's bedroom. The blonde lady proceeds to take 14 out a massage table and set it up, prepare it. She also 15 takes out some lotions to be used during the massage. 16 told me last night that the blonde lady asked her to 17 remove her clothing, and then left the room and said that 18 Mr. Epstein would be in shortly. 19 Q what happened after she left the room? 20 A Shortly after that, Mr. Epstein does come into 21 the room and shakes s hand. told us last night 22 that Mr. Epstein told her to remove her clothing. He 23 leaves the room and comes back in just a towel, and he 24 tells her again to -- she is at that point -- when he 25 walked in the first time she had on her bra and her pants. EFTA00085323  Page 12 1 When he comes back in, he tells her that she needs to take 2 her pants off. So she took her pants off. So now she's 3 in her bra and underwear. 4 Q At some point did Sage tell any of the people who interviewed her what was running through her mind? 6 A She stated at one point that she was upstairs 7 with him, with the man, and that Maas downstairs. I 8 guess she says, "What coul do? She's downstairs, 9 I'm upstairs." So she did what she was asked to do. 10 Q So now you mention that Mr. Epstein is here 11 wearing just a towel, and has removed both her shirt 12 and her pants, is that correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Tell us what happens then? 15 A Mr. Epstein gets on the massage table lying on 16 his stomach and instructs how to do the massage. He 17 tells her to put some lotion on her hand and instructs her 18 on how to actually perform the massage. At one point 19 during the massage he tells ■ that she would be more 20 comfortable to get on top of him, so gets on top of 21 him and straddles Mr. Epstein's back. 22 The way describes it is Mr. Epstein is 23 laying on the table, he has a towel covering his bottom, 24 and she is straddling him with her bottom touching the 25 towel and some skin touching his lower back. She was kind EFTA00085324  4 Page 13 1 of sitting -- it sounds like sitting on his rear end, but 2 with part of her skin touching him -- the front of him, 3 but he had a towel across his bottom. 4 What happens as she is providing the massage to 5 his back? 6 A The massage goes on. She said the entire 7 massage lasted anywhere from 30 to 45 minutes. At one 8 point Mr. Epstein excuses himself for a few minutes, one 9 or two minutes briefly. states that she can hear 10 Mr. Epstein moaning or groaning, and states that she 11 believes he was, in her words, 'wacking off' or 12 masturbating. She didn't say masturbating, she said 13 'wacking off.' I am going to use that she believes he was 14 masturbating. 15 Then he returns. At this point he gets back on 16 the table lying on his back and asks her to start 17 massaging his chest. So she begins to massage his chest. 18 Q Does he keep the towel on? 19 A No, at this point the towel is removed. When he 20 comes back and he gets back on the table, the towel is 21 removed and she is massaging his chest. 22 Q What does he do as she is massaging his chest? 23 A He moves his hand up and down his penis. So he 24 continued to masturbate on the table. He asked at 25 some point during this time, if she would like to make an EFTA00085325  Page 14 extra $100. He tells her that it would not involve doing a massage. agrees. He asked her if he could use a vibrator on her, and she does agree. describes it as a purple vibrator that was used said this goes on for about ten minutes. At some point during that massage the vibrator is not used anymore and takes place. describes him Q What did she say happened when Mr. Epstein 10 digitally penetrated her? 11 A The vibrator is used. At some point he does 12 her. And these are her words. She 13 looks at him kind of funny, and he sarcastically -- which 14 is her word -- he sarcastically says, "What's the matter?" 15 And she at that point just kind of looks away, and he 16 continues on with the In the last 17 three to four minutes of that, he begins to masturbate 18 again. 19 At the conclusion of the sexual activity, 20 Mr. Epstein wipes his penis off with a towel. was 21 asked if he ejaculated. She did not see him ejaculate, 22 but saw him wipe his penis off with a towel. 23 Q Was able to

EFTA00083852.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 KEYANA POMPEY - Probation Officer 25 LEA HARMON - Probation Officer SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00083852  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? MR. : 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. EFTA00083853  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. MR. : 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 MR. : 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. EFTA00083854  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 MR. : May I have one moment, your Honor? 7 THE COURT: Yes. 8 MR. : 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. EFTA00083855  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? MR. : 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 MR. : 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. EFTA00083856  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. EFTA00083857  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 MR. : Your Honor, if I could very briefly 16 respond to those points? 17 THE COURT: Sure. 18 MR. : 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. EFTA00083858  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 MR. : 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. EFTA00083859  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. EFTA00083860  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. EFTA00083861  J78repsc Li 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. EFTA00083862  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 MR. : Your Honor, if I may very briefly? 11 THE COURT: Yes. 12 MR. : 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. EFTA00083863  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 Mr. : 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. EFTA00083864  J78repsc 14 1 MR. : 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 MR. : 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. EFTA00083865  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 MR. : 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 MR. Yes, your Honor. Thank you. 22 (Pause) 23 MR. : 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. EFTA00083866  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 MR. : 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 MR. : 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. EFTA00083867  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 MR. : Your Honor. May we have one more 20 moment with defense counsel? 21 THE COURT: Sure. 22 (Pause) 23 MR. : Nothing from the government. Your 24 25 THE COURT: Defense? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00083868  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. EFTA00083869

EFTA00722411.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 16 pages

Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA M.J., CASE NO. 9:10-CV-81111-WPD Plaintiff, Vs. FFR Y ST IN, and Defendants. PLAINTIFF M.J.'S RESPONSE TO ESPTEIN'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS AND MOTION FOR A HEARING TO PROVE FRAUD, TO PROVE PROPER SERVICE, TO OBTAIN SANCTIONS FOR EPSTEIN'S SUBMISSION OF A FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVIT, TO OBTAIN A WARNING FORBIDDING FURTHER OBSTRUCTIONS IN THE CASES, AND TO SET AN ACCELERATED SCHEDULE FOR DISCOVERY Plaintiff, M.J., hereby files this response to Epstein's Motion to Quash Service of Process and for a hearing to demonstrate fraud, to prove the defendant Epstein was properly served, to obtain sanctions for his submission of fraudulent affidavits, to obtain a warning forbidding any further obstruction in the case, and to set an accelerated schedule for discovery including an Order that Epstein is in default for failing to timely answer the complaint. Plaintiff M.J. was repeatedly sexually abused by defendant Jeffrey Epstein when she was a minor. Epstein is a politically-connected billionaire. M.J. filed suit in this Court against Epstein, seeking substantial damages. After Epstein's counsel refused to accept service of M.J.'s complaint, M.J.'s counsel sent a private investigator to Epstein's New York mansion (Epstein's usual place of abode) to serve Epstein. On Friday, EFTA00722411 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 2 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRANOHNSON October 8, 2010, the investigator hand-delivered to one of Epstein's employees, who identified himself as 'Mark," a copy of the summons and complaint and other related documents, which "Mark' then took into Epstein's mansion. This constituted proper service under the federal rules. Epstein's answer to M.J.'s complaint was accordingly due on Friday, October 29, 2010. Rather than answer the complaint, however, on October 29, Epstein's legal counsel filed a motion to "quash" service of process, alleging that process was not properly made. Attached to the Motion was an Affidavit of Richard Barnett, which swore that an "unmarked and unpostmarked envelope was discovered in the mailbox at Mr. Epstein's vacation home in New York at 9 East 7111 Street on Wednesday October 13, 2010. . . . Service was never delivered to anyone at Mr. Effisitein's house." The statement that the service was not delivered to anyone at the house was false and nothing short of an intentional fraud being committed on the court. The circumstances surrounding the making of this statement strongly suggest that Barnett swore to this false statement deliberately, for the purpose of obstructing proper proceedings in this case. Defendant Epstein's history of obstructing sexual abuse litigation against him strongly supports the conclusion that Epstein contrived for Barnett to perjure himself in the affidavit. M.J. accordingly asks that Epstein's Motion To Quash be denied and that she be granted a hearing to prove these facts, to prove that service has properly been made, to obtain appropriate sanctions for the perjury, to have the court warn Epstein against further improper obstruction, and to set an accelerated discovery schedule in this case, 2 EFTA00722412 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 3 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-NIARRA/JOHNSON and to Order Epstein to immediately file an Answer to MJ's Complaint or alternatively to Strike Epstein's pleadings. FACTUAL BACKGROUND At any hearing the Court might conduct, M.J. is prepared to establish the following facts through competent and admissible testimony. In this pleading, M.J. will also provide affidavits and other evidence sufficient to permit the Court to move forward on the basis of this pleading alone. Because Epstein has a history of not responding directly to allegations made by girls he has sexually abused, M.J. is numbering each of her individual facts. If Epstein does not respond to M.J.'s facts specifically, the Court should draw the obvious conclusion that the fact is accurate. M.J.'s Facts Supporting Proper Service of Process 1. On September 17, 2010, M.J. filed a complaint in this Court, alleging that defendant Jeffrey Epstein had repeatedly sexually abused her while she was a minor. See M.J. v. Epstein, No. 9:10-CV-81111-WPD (DE 1). 2. On about September 2, 2010, counsel for M.J., asked Christopher Knight, legal counsel for Jeffrey Epstein, in writing if he would accept service of process for Epstein. Epstein's counsel refused to accept service. 3. Counsel for M.J. then retained the services of Thomas Marsigliano, a Private Investigator in New York, to make service on Epstein and one whom the law firm of Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing has been forced to pay $1,400.00, up to this point just to obtain service on Epstein. Declaration of Edwards - Exhibit 1 at 116-17. 3 EFTA00722413 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 4 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 4. Marsigliano was provided with the address of Epstein's New York mansion, where Epstein was residing. Marsigliano conducted several days of surveillance on Epstein's mansion in an attempt to personally serve Epstein. Declaration of Thomas Marsigliano (Exhibit 2) at ¶2-5 (hereinafter "Marsigliano Dec.'). 5. On Friday, October 8, 2010, Marsigliano went to Epstein's mansion at 9 East 714 Street, and he knocked on the door. An employee of Epstein who identified himself as "Mark" answered the door and informed Mr. Marsigliano that Epstein was "not home' before he accepted service for Epstein. See Marsigliano Dec. at Ii 5-7. 6. On October 13, 2010, Mr. Knight approached Mr. Edwards after a hearing to discuss this case on behalf of his client and Mr. Edwards informed Mr. Knight that someone at Epstein's residence in New York had accepted service for Epstein. 7. On October 29, 2010, proof of service was lodged with the Court (DE_5) — (corrected to DE_11-Summons (Affidavit) Returned Executed). That proof of service stated that Marsigliano had left the summons `at [Epstein's] residence or usual place of abode with Mark, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there . . . ." 8. The foregoing service constituted proper service the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(B). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an answer to a properly served complaint must be filed within 21 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). False Statement by Richard Barnett, an Agent of Epstein 9. On October 29, 2010, Lilly Ann Sanchez, legal counsel for Epstein, filed a motion in this Court to Quash Service of Process. (DE 7). 4 EFTA00722414 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 5 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119•MARRA/JOHNSON 10. Attached to the pleading was an Affidavit of a Richard Barnett. The affidavit stated: 'On Wednesday, October 13, 2010, an unmarked and unpostrnarked envelope was discovered in the mailbox at Mr. E[psitein's vacation home in New York City at 9 East 7181 Street. The envelope contained a Summons and Complaint in the subject action, a Civil Rico Case Statement, a deposition subpoena, notices of video depositions, interrogatories and requests for production. Service was never delivered to anyone at Mr. E[psJtein's house." Affidavit of Richard Barnett at ¶ 2-3 (emphasis rearranged) (DE_7-1). The affidavit also stated that Bamett had been duly sworn. Barnett signed the document before a New York Notary Public, although it should be noted that the Notary does not properly indicate how Richard Barnett was properly identified. Id. 11. The affidavit of Richard Barnett was patently false. As recounted above, service had been delivered to "Mark" at Epstein's house on October 8, 2010. See Pam. 5, supra. 12. The affidavit of Richard Barnett is written to obscure important information. In particular, the affidavit uses the passive voice to state that "an unmarked . . envelope was discovered in the mailbox" at Epstein's home. The affidavit does not state who made the discovery. The affidavit does not state whether Bamett has personal knowledge of the facts contained in his affidavit. 13. Barnett subsequently filed a second affidavit, this time to merely announce that nobody named "Mark` was at the house on October 8, 2010. While this may be true, this only demonstrates that the person who accepted service on October 8, 2010 at Mr. 5 EFTA00722415 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 6 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's residence lied about his name, and accordingly Mr. Barnett's second affidavit is virtually worthless. Epstein's Pattern of Obstruction in Other Similar Civil Suits Against Him 14. The false affidavit filed by Barnett in this case parallels other false statements made and evasive actions taken by Epstein's associates in other similar civil cases filed against him by other young girls he sexually abused. More than 20 civil cases like M.J.'s have been filed against Epstein in the last three years. Epstein has settled all of the cases. Among those cases was a federal lawsuit filed by Jane Doe in this court, styled as Jane Doe v. Epstein, 9:08-cv-80893. M.J.'s legal counsel also handled Jane Doe's case against Epstein. 15. While working on that case and others like it, Edwards learned through deposition that Ghislaine Maxwell was involved in managing Epstein's affairs and companies. See Edwards Dec. at 114. 16. , Alfredo Rodriguez, also 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. In light of this and other information, Edwards served her for deposition in 2009. Maxwell was represented by Brett Jaffe of the New York firm of Cohen and Gresser, and Edwards understood that her attorney was paid for (directly or indirectly) by Epstein. She was reluctant to give her deposition, and Edwards tried to work with her attorney to take her deposition on terms that would be acceptable to both sides. The result was a confidentiality 6 EFTA00722416 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 7 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON agreement, under which Maxwell agreed to drop any objections to the deposition. Maxwell, however, contrived to avoid the deposition. On June 29, 2010, one day before Edwards was to fly to New York to take Maxwell's deposition, her attorney informed Edwards that Maxwell's mother was deathly ill and Maxwell was consequently flying to England with no intention of returning to the United States. Despite that assertion, Ghislaine Maxwell was in fact in the country on July 31, 2010, as she attended the wedding of Chelsea Clinton (former President Clinton's daughter) and was captured in a photograph taken for US Weekly dated August 16, 2010. See Edwards Dec. at ¶ 6-7. 17. Maxwell was not the only important witness to lie to avoid deposition by Edwards in the Jane Doe case. Jean Luc Brunel did so as well. Upon review of message pads police took from Epstein's home, many were discovered to be from Jean Luc Brunel, a French citizen and one of Epstein's closest friends. Brunel left messages for Epstein that were taken by Epstein's staff such as "Ile has a teacher for you how to speak Russian. She is 2x8 years old not blonde: Lessons are free and you can have 1st today if you call". Exhibit 3. In light of the circumstances of the case, this appeared to be an encrypted message suggesting that Brunel might have been procuring two eight-year- old girls for Epstein to sexually abuse. According to widely circulated press reports, Brunel is in his sixties and has a reputation throughout the world (and especially in the modeling industry) as a cocaine addict that has for years molested children through modeling agencies while acting as their agent. Brunel is also someone that visited Epstein on approximately 67 occasions while Epstein was In jail. See Edwards Dec. at 7 EFTA00722417 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 8 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAJJOHNSON ¶ 8-10. Brunel currently runs the modeling agency MC2, a company for which Epstein provides financial support. 18. In view of this information suggesting Brunel could provide significant evidence of Epstein's trafficking in young girls for sexual abuse, Edwards had Brunel served in New York for deposition. Before the deposition took place, Brunel's attorney (Tama Kudman of West Palm Beach) contacted Edwards to delay the deposition date. Eventually Kudman informed Edwards in January 2009 that Brunel had left the country and was back in France with no plans to return. This information was untrue; Brunel was actually staying with Epstein in West Palm Beach as evidenced by Epstein's probation file where Epstein was required to note is house guests. See Edwards Dec. at ¶ 11-12. As a result, Edwards filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause, (DE 483), attached hereto as Exhibit 4. (Because Epstein settled this case, the motion was never ruled upon.) 19. Edwards was also informed that Epstein paid for not only his representation during the civil process but also paid for legal representation for (Epstein's executive assistant and procurer of girls for him to abuse), Larry Visoski (Epstein's personal pilot), Dave Rogers (Epstein's personal pilot), Larry Harrison (Epstein's personal pilot), Ghislaine Maxwell (manager of Epstein's affairs and businesses) , Mark Epstein (Epstein's brother), and Janusz Banasiak (Epstein's house manager). It was nearly impossible to take a deposition of someone that would have helpful information that was not represented an attorney paid for by Epstein. See Edwards Dec. at 113-14. 8 EFTA00722418 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 9 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 20. Epstein has deliberately hidden relevant correspondence regarding his guilt of sex offenses by making only partial productions of correspondence in other cases, as detailed at greater length in M.J.'s contemporaneously filed Motion for Instructions to Epstein to Preserve Certain Correspondence. 21. Epstein has harassed girls who have filed civil suits against him, as detailed at greater length in M.J.'s contemporaneously filed Motion for a Protective Order Barring Direct or Indirect Conduct with Her. 22. In view of this pattern of obstruction other cases, the reasonable inference arises that Barnett's false statement in his affidavit was not an accident, but rather a deliberate evasion orchestrated by Epstein to delay the orderly processing of this case. LEGAL MEMORANUM I. THE COURT SHOULD HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE CIRCUMUSTANCES SURROUNDING BARNETT'S FALSE STATEMENT. Before this case can proceed to its conclusion, Epstein must be served. There is now an evidentiary dispute about whether service has been properly made. M.J.'s investigator, Thomas Marsigliano, has provided a sworn statement to this Court that he handed the complaint and other materials to Epstein's representative inside his home. Epstein, on the other hand, has submitted a sworn statement to this Court — through Richard Barnett — that this event never happened. Accordingly, this Court has a pure and simple factual dispute to resolve. M.J. respectfully requests a brief evidentiary hearing on the matter, at which she would plan to call four witnesses: First, Mr. Marsigliano to testify to his service of the complaint; Second, *Mark" [Last Name Unknown) to testify to his receipt of the 9 EFTA00722419 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 10 of 16 CASE NO: 084V-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON complaint in Epstein's New York mansion; third, Richard Bamett to establish that he has given a false statement to the Court that no such service had occurred and to develop the reasons why he swore to such a false statement; and finally, Jeffrey Epstein, to establish (either directly or circumstantially) his awareness that a false statement was being submitted to the Court on his behalf and his direct involvement in orchestrating that false statement. M.J. estimates that the hearing could be held in approximately one hour. The appropriate way to resolve this factual dispute is through such a brief evidentiary hearing. Because Epstein has raised a specific factual dispute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) — i.e., whether service was made on an individual residing at his dwelling -- M.J. now bears the burden of establishing that particular fact. See Grand Entertainment Group, Ltd. V. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476, 488 (3d Cir. 1993). The court must then "weigh and determine (the) disputed issues of facts on a Rule 12(b)(5) motion." Cranford v. United States, 359 F.Supp.2d 981, 984 (E.D. Cal. 2005). An evidentiary hearing is the proper vehicle for resolving this particular factual dispute. See Blair v. City of Worcester, 522 F.3d 105, 115 (1st Cir. 2008) (reversing district court for refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing where factual issues surrounding service of process were disputed). II. M.J. HAS PROPERLY SERVED EPSTEIN. M.J. will establish at the evidentiary hearing that she delivered her complaint and the other required documents to the caretaker at Epstein's mansion in New York, where he often went. This was sufficient service. 10 EFTA00722420 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 11 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAMOHNSON Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(2)(B) provides that service can be made by leaving a copy of [the complaint and other documents] at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there . . . Epstein's counsel admit they have received proof of service from Marsigliano attesting that he left M.J.'s complaint with the caretaker at Epstein's residence or usual place of abode. See Epstein's Mot. to Quash at 2 ("As of today, there is a document which purports to be a return of service."). In his motion to quash, Epstein concedes the materials were left at his °vacation home.° Barnett Aff. at 1. Epstein's New York Mansion is well known for being the largest private residence in Manhattan and for being owned by Epstein. Given Marsigliano's affidavit and Epstein's concession about the fact that it is his home, the Court should conclude that the New York mansion was in fact Epstein's dwelling or usual place of abode. See Blair v. City of Worcester, 522 F.3d 105, 110 (151 Cir. 2008) ("A return of service generally serves as prima fade evidence that service was validly performed."); Gottlieb v. Sandia Am. Corp., 452 F.2d 510, 514 n. 5 (3rd Cir.1971) ("although a marshal's return is not conclusive on the question of service on an agent, it will stand in the absence of proof to the contrary"). The Court may take judicial notice of facts contained in the record in adjudicating service of process issues. Sidney v. Wilson, 228 F.R.D. 517 (S.D.NY. 2005). Marsigliano's return of service attesting that the mansion is Epstein's dwelling or usual place of abode is such a fact, particularly given that "in a high mobile and affluent society, it is 11 EFTA00722421 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 12 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON unrealistic to interpret Rule 4(d)(1) 1 so that the person to be served has only one dwelling house or usual place of abode.' 2 The only question for the Court, then, is whether M.J. has left a copy of her complaint and other documents with someone at the home. For the reasons explained in Part I above, the Court should find that Marsigliano did in fact leave the complaint. Service was accordingly proper. It is also clear now that Epstein's attorneys have received the complaint on his behalf — thereby effectively giving him actual notice of the claim M.J. has filed against him. "To the extent that there is any rule or guide to be followed by the federals in such a case [of disputed service] it is that where actual notice of the commencement of the action and the duty to defend has been received by the one served, the provisions of Rule (4)(d)(1)3 should be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court, thus insuring the opportunity for a trial on the merits? Karlsson v. Rabinowitz, 318 F.2d 666, 668 (4th Cir. 1966). Rule 4 is a flexible rule that should be liberally construed so long as a party receives sufficient notice of the complaint, United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta Co., 736 F.2d 1371, 1382 (9th Cir.1984)." Epstein has received ample notice here. The Court was referring to an earlier version of what is now Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). This problem may be particularly acute for the super-wealthy like Epstein. According to Wikipedia, "[l]n addition to his private island in the U.S. Virgin Island (Little St. James Island), Epstein owns a 50,000 square foot townhouse in Manhattan that was formerly owned by Les Wexner. a villa in Palm Beach, Florida, and a fortress on a ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Wikipedia entry for Jeffrey Edward Epstein (visited on Oct. 30, 2010). Accordingly, it may be difficult to identify a single "dwelling" for Epstein. 3 The Court was referring to an earlier version of what is now Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). 12 EFTA00722422 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 13 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON III. THE COURT SHOULD IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON EPSTEIN FOR FILING A FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVIT WITH THE COURT. For the reasons explained above — and based on the testimony M.J. will provide at the evidentiary hearing — the Court should conclude that Barnett knowingly filed a false affidavit with the Court and that Epstein was responsible for the filing. The Court should then impose appropriate sanctions on Epstein to prevent such future misbehavior. The Court has authority to impose sanctions on Epstein, both under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c) (authorizing sanction on a `party"), and under the Court's inherent power to sanction those who commit fraud before it. See, e.g. Thomas v. Tenneco Packaging Co., Inc., 293 F.3d 1306, 1320 (11th Cir. 2002) (discussing inherent power of the district courts to impose sanctions). As recounted at greater length in the facts section of this pleading, Epstein is a billionaire who has obstructed other proceedings in the past. Accordingly, the sanctions the Court imposes should be substantial, so that they reflect the need to deter similar behavior by Epstein in the future. As Rule 11 explains, the sanction should be designed 'to deter petition of the conduct or comparable conduct . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). Epstein should also be ordered to pay all the costs and attorneys' fees M.J. has incurred in responding to his fraudulent argument that he was not served. IV. THE COURT SHOULD WARN EPSTEIN THAT FURTHER OBSTRUCTION IN THIS CASE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. As noted above, Epstein has a history of obstructing similar proceedings with a variety of dilatory tactics. Accordingly, he should be warned that any further obstruction 13 EFTA00722423 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 14 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON in this case — including the submission of any more fraudulent affidavits — will not be tolerated. V. THE COURT SHOULD ESTABLISH AN EXPEDITED SCHEDULE FOR RESOLVING THIS CASE. Given Epstein's obvious Intent to obstruct and delay these proceedings, M.J. respectfully requests that the Court directly intervene now and set up an appropriate, accelerated schedule for bringing this case to trial. M.J. is fully prepared to proceed expeditiously. And Epstein, a billionaire, has vast financial resources that he can use to prepare this case for trial quickly. Moreover, Epstein has now defended more than twenty civil suits filed against him of a similar nature. Therefore, he is fully aware of the scope of the claims and the kinds of defenses that need to be raised. Therefore, the Court should set up an expedited schedule. POSITION OF THE PARTIES M.J. conferred with counsel for defendant Epstein and understands that defendant Epstein objects to all these requests. CONCLUSION M.J. requests this Court: enter and Order denying Epstein's Motion To Quash, or alternatively that MJ be granted a hearing to prove that service was properly made; to obtain appropriate sanctions for the perjury and false affidavits filed on behalf of Epstein; to have the court warn Epstein against further improper obstruction; and to set an accelerated discovery schedule in this case; and finally to Order Epstein to immediately file an Answer to MJ's Complaint or alternatively to Strike Epstein's pleadings. 14 EFTA00722424 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 15 of 16 CASE NO: 0S-CV-80119-MARRAMOHNSON DATED: November 11, 2010 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS. FISTOS & LEHRMAN P.L. Telephon Facsimile Florida inali m E-mail: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 11, 2010 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 EFTA00722425 Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2010 Page 16 of 16 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119•MARRA/JOHNSON SERVICE LIST M.J. v. Jeffrey Epstein United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Lill Ann Sanchez Christo her E. Kni ht Helaine S. Goodner FOWLER WHITE BURNEMA Counselfor Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein 16 EFTA00722426

EFTA00105954.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 12 pages

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 20 Cr. 330 (MN) v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. EVID. 404(b) FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULE'S NOTICE REQUIREMENT Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver CO 80203 Phone: Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, Phone: Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone Attorneys for Chislaine Maxwell EFTA00105954  TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND 1 I. 2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b) 1 II. Rule 404(b) Notice in This Case 2 ARGUMENT 4 I. By Failing to Comply with the Rule 404(b) Notice Requirement, the Government Has Waived the Admission of Any Evidence Pursuant to the Rule 4 II. Should the Government's Failure Be Excused, Ms. Maxwell Requests an Opportunity to Rebut any Proffered Non-Propensity Purpose and Basis 5 III. Ms. Maxwell Needs Additional Time to Respond to the Scant Notice that the Materials Qualify as "Direct Evidence" in the Case 6 CONCLUSION 7 EFTA00105955  TABLES OF AUTHORITIES Cases United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2006) 4 United States v. Bid, 859 F. App'x 610 (2d Cir. 2021) 4 Other Authorities Wright & Miller, 22B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid., § 5242.1 2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b) (2021) 2, 6 Rules Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) passim ii EFTA00105956  Ghislaine Maxwell moves in limine to exclude any evidence the Government seeks to admit at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (the "Rule"). That Rule, as amended in December 2020, expressly requires particularized notice to the defense of the exact evidence to be offered, an articulated non-propensity purpose for its admission, and the reasoning supporting that purpose. Despite notice of the rule change and an opportunity to comply with the Rule by this Court's deadline of October 11, the Government opted not to follow the requirements of the Rule and should now be foreclosed from offering any evidence pursuant to Rule 404(6). BACKGROUND I. 2020 Amendments to Rule 404(6) Rule 404 sets forth the requirements for "Notice in a Criminal Case" of an intent to introduce evidence under the rule: "In a criminal case, the prosecutor must: (A) provide reasonable notice of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial, so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it; (B) articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose; and (C) do so in writing before trial — or in any form during trial of the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3). In December 2020, the Rule was "amended principally to impose additional notice requirements in a criminal case." Fed. R. Evid. 404, Advisory Committee Notes, 2020 Amendments. Prior to the rule change, the prosecution needed only to give notice of the "general nature" of the anticipated evidence; thus, "some courts...permit[ted] the government to satisfy the notice obligation without describing the specific act that the evidence would tend to prove, and without explaining the relevance of the evidence for a non- propensity purpose" (id.). 1 EFTA00105957  After December 2020, according to the Advisory Committee, the new subsection (B) requires that: The prosecution must not only identify the evidence that it intends to offer pursuant to the rule but also articulate a non-propensity purpose for which the evidence is offered and the basis for concluding that the evidence is relevant in light of this purpose. Id. (emphasis added). The Rule's requirement that the prosecution must "identify the evidence," "articulate a non-propensity purpose" and a "basis for concluding the evidence is relevant in light of this purpose" replaced the previous notice requirement only of the "general nature" of anticipated evidence. The "advance notice" is "important so that the parties and the court have adequate opportunity to assess the evidence, the purpose for which it is offered, and whether the requirements of Rule 403 have been satisfied . ." Id. The new rule also required that the pre-trial notice be done in writing, "sufficiently ahead of trial to give the defendant a fair opportunity to meet the evidence." Rule 404(b)(3)(A). "The 'air opportunity' must include sufficient time for an independent investigation that might surface evidence that refutes, mitigates, or places the other act in a different light. Prosecutors who cut the disclosure too close to the trial date risk a judge either excluding the evidence so that the trial can proceed as scheduled or delaying the trial so the defense can "meet" the other act proof. Easy to overlook is that the judge too needs time to consider the admissibility of the other act evidence." See Wright & Miller, 22B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid., § 5242.1 2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b) (2021). II. Rule 404(b) Notice in This Case The Government advised this Court that it could provide notice of any Rule 404(b) evidence by 45 days prior to trial, which would afford it "adequate time to finalize its determination of what evidence it will seek to introduce at trial pursuant to" the Rule. See Dkt. 2 EFTA00105958 229 at 3. This Court then ordered the Government to provide disclosure of any "Rule 404(b) evidence and notice" by October 11. Dkt. 297. On October 11, 2021, the Government served on defense counsel a short letter entitled the "Maxwell Rule 404(b) letter" (the "Rule 404(b) Letter" or the "Letter"), attached as Exhibit A. In it, the Government referenced two sets of evidence: (a) certain emails purportedly between Ms. Maxwell and third-party "influential" men whom she allegedly tried to set up on dates, and (b) a witness a woman who worked for Epstein between 2005-06 (after the conclusion of the charged conspiracy) whom the Government said it "may call" at trial. The Government asserted in the Letter that the evidence collectively was, in its opinion, "direct evidence of the crimes charged and, in the alternative, pursuant to Rule 404(b) as proof of the defendant's intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, and/or absence of mistake of (sic) accident." Id. at 2. The Government stated it would not be moving in limine to seek the evidence's admission "[b]ecause this evidence is admissible as direct evidence." Id. The Letter lacked identification of any particular purpose for these two categories of evidence and lacked any "basis for concluding that the evidence is relevant in light of this purpose." Also on October 11, the Government provided its anticipated trial exhibits. Even a quick review of those exhibits reflects the Government's apparent intent to offer numerous documents and other evidence that purportedly occurred after the conclusion of the charged conspiracy. See, e.g., GX-4-D through GX-4-K (message pads dated beginning in 2005); GX-423 (an Amazon shipment to Jeffrey Epstein of an iPhone USB lightning cable in 2013); GX-501 & 502 (financial statements from June 2007); GX-661 & 662 (flight logs from 2005-13). None of these items of evidence were mentioned in the Maxwell Rule 404(b) Letter. The Government's theory of admissibility concerning this post-2004 evidence remains unclear. 3 EFTA00105959  ARGUMENT I. By Failing to Comply with the Rule 404(b) Notice Requirement, the Government Has Waived the Admission of Any Evidence Pursuant to the Rule Under the version of Rule 404(b) in effect for this trial, the Government was required to specifically "identify" any evidence it intends to offer under the Rule, to "articulate...the permitted purpose for which" the identified evidence will be offered, and to state the "reasoning that supports the purpose." The Government did not timely comply with these requirements and should therefore be precluded from offering any evidence under Rule 404(b). To be sure, the Rule 404(b) Letter did "identify" several emails purportedly between Ms. Maxwell and two other adult men that discuss fixing them up with women on a date. But even though the Government claimed these emails may be admissible "in the alternative, pursuant to Rule 404(b)," there is nothing in the Letter which states the permitted purpose for which they might be offered, nor the "reasoning that supports that purpose." Ms. Maxwell is unable to guess which of the laundry list of potential purposes contained in Rule 404(b) might serve as the grounds, and she certainly is not able to guess the Government's "reasoning." Without the required notice, both defense counsel and the Court cannot undertake the required analysis to determine whether the evidence is being offered for a proper non-propensity purpose, is relevant to a disputed issue, can satisfy a Rule 403 analysis, or needs a limiting instruction. United States v. Bui, 859 F. App'x 610 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order) (quoting United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179, 196 (2d Cir. 2006)). The Government likewise did "identify" MsMts a potential witness and offered two, non-exclusive potential topics of her testimony. The Government advised that she will testify about, "among other things, [i] certain [unspecified] documentary evidence relating to the 4 EFTA00105960 charged crimes [and (ii)] her [unspecified] role in scheduling sexualized massages for Jeffrey Epstein with underage girls," apparently in 2005-06. This is hardly the type of "identiff ied]" evidence the Rule contemplates. What "documentary evidence" will she testify about? What "role" did she play in scheduling massages after the conclusion of the charged conspiracy? For what purpose will she testify to it? Are there other topics covered by the language "among other things" that the Government submits is admissible under Rule 404(b)? What is it? What is the purpose of it? Will it be offered to prove Ms. Maxwell's "intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity and/or absence of mistake of [sic] accident" or something else? How is it permissible non-propensity evidence? Finally, by failing to identify the numerous exhibits that fall after the period of the conspiracy in the Rule 404(b) Letter, the Government has also waived any right to argue that those documents should be admitted under the rule as well. The entire point of the change to Rule 404(b), and this Court's scheduling Order, is to permit Ms. Maxwell to investigate, analyze, dispute, move in limine if appropriate, or rebut the proffered Rule 404(3) evidence. There is nothing in Rule 404(b) that excuses the required Notice in the event the Government only offers the evidence "in the alternative" under the rule. By disregarding the requirements of Rule 404(b), the Government has chosen to deprive Ms. Maxwell of her right to dispute the admissibility of this evidence. II. Should the Government's Failure Be Excused, Ms. Maxwell Requests an Opportunity to Rebut any Proffered Non-Propensity Purpose and Basis Because the Government has not identified the non-propensity purpose nor reasoning underlying the admission of any Rule 404(b) evidence, the defense is left without "sufficient time for an independent investigation that might surface evidence that refutes, mitigates, or places the other act in a different light," and the Court will not have sufficient "time to consider 5 EFTA00105961 the admissibility of the other act evidence." Wright & Miller, supra. Should the Government request a "good-cause" exemption for their failure to timely provide Rule 404(b) notice, this Court should analyze their excuse with skepticism. "Prosecutors should be prepared to explain their change of heart and to rebut allegations of sandbagging. Unforeseen turns of testimony at trial are one thing. Reasonably anticipated proof problems are another. For example, when intent is an element of a charged offense, a prosecutor will be hard pressed to explain why he did not foresee before trial that the other act proof may be important in a jury's determination of intent." Wright & Miller, supra. Here, the government has been on notice of the elements it needs to prove since July 2020. It advised the Court it would be able to provide Rule 404(b) notice back in May 2021. Dkt. 229 at 3. With the trial continuance, it gained an additional five months. See Dkt. 297. There is no acceptable excuse for failure to follow the requirements of the Rule. Given the significant number of other pre-trial filing deadlines, briefing the admissibility of the proffered Rule 404(b) evidence in the midst of her other obligations will be exceptionally difficult. If the Court is inclined to grant the government additional time to satisfy the Rule, Ms. Maxwell requests ample time to investigate the materials and to respond. III. Ms. Maxwell Needs Additional Time to Respond to the Scant Notice that the Materials Qualify as "Direct Evidence" in the Case The Rule 404(b) Letter also repeated the Government's opinion that the newly-disclosed materials qualify as "direct evidence" of the conspiracy. At first blush, it is hard to see how they could so qualify. The emails referenced in the Letter purport to be between Ms. Maxwell and two adult men, apparently arranging dates for them, with adult women, sometime in the early 2000s. They do not reference or have anything to do with (a) the persons mentioned in the Indictment or any other testifying witness, nor (b) any of the legal allegations contained in the 6 EFTA00105962 Indictment. It is hard to imagine how an adult women fixing up single adult males with adult females is "direct evidence" of a conspiracy to transport, entice or traffic minors for sexual abuse. As to the witness referenced in the Letter, the Letter makes clear that the witness worked for Mr. Epstein from 2005-06, after the conclusion of the charged conspiracy in 2004. Given the timing of her stated employment, it also begs the question how her testimony, reference to unspecified documents or scheduling of unspecified massages, "among other things," could be direct evidence of a conspiracy that ended a year earlier. But because Ms. Maxwell has had insufficient time to investigate these newly-disclosed materials, she is unable to file a motion challenging their admissibility at this time. The emails involve two persons not interviewed by the Government, so there is no interview memo to corroborate their content. At least two of the potential witnesses are foreign nationals who live abroad. Ms. Maxwell will need time to contact and interview them. As to the newly disclosed witness, the Government produced on October 12, 2021 approximately 400 pages of interview reports, notes, documents, and other materials related to that witness. Ms. Maxwell is unable to review, investigate, or rebut the admissibility of all of the referenced materials by the October 18, 2021 due date for motions in limine, and requests an additional two weeks to file her brief addressing the proffered 404(b) evidence. CONCLUSION The Government has been on notice of the amendments to Rule 404(b) since at least January 25, 2021. See Dkt. 146 at 10.' The Government was prepared to disclose their Rule Indeed, the Government argued in their response to Ms. Maxwell's pretrial motions that certain evidence pertaining to Accuser-3 would be admissible under Rule 404(b); yet the deadline to provide Notice of an intent to offer that evidence at trial under the rule has come and gone. See Dkt. 204 at 165-169. Ms. Maxwell today moves separately to exclude the evidence pertaining to Accuser-3. 7 EFTA00105963 404(b) Notice by May 28, a date that was extended to October 11 after the continuance of the trial. Dkt. 229 at 3. The failure to comply with the requirements of the Rule has deprived Ms. Maxwell of the opportunity to litigate the issues on the timetable set by the Court. There is thus no "good cause" for extending the Government's ability to do so. This Court should exclude any evidence the government seeks belatedly to offer pursuant to Rule 404(b), or, alternatively should the Court find good cause for the failure of notice, grant Ms. Maxwell additional time to respond. As far as admissibility of the evidence referenced in the Letter as "direct evidence" of the charged crimes, Ms. Maxwell seeks leave to file such a Motion within two weeks. Dated: October 18, 2021 Respectfully submitted, st Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denve Phone.", Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York NY 10022 Phone: Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone Attorneysfor Ghislaine Maxwell 8 EFTA00105964  Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion to Exclude Any Evidence Offered by the Government Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)for Failure to Comply with the Rule's Notice Requirement with the Clerk of Court using the CWECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York NY 10007 s/ Nicole Simmons 9 EFTA00105965

EFTA01246464.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 47 pages

Page 1 Page 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 2 IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON 3 4 . JANE DOE NO. 2. 5 Plaintiff. Plaintiff. 6 -vs- VOLUME I OF III -vs- VOLUME I OF III JEFFREY EPSTEIN. 7 JEFFREY EPSTEIN. Defendant 8 Defendant. I I 9 Related eases: 10 08-80232. 08-08380. 08-80381. 08-80994 11 08-80993. 08-8081 1. 08-80893. 0940469 12 VIDE TAPED DEPOSITION OF 09.80591. 09-80656. 09-80802. 09-81092 13 r 14 VIIMMI 15 Wednesday. March 24.2010 SMON OF 10:37 - 6:51 p.m. 16 Wednesday. March 24. 2010 17 10:37 - 6:51 p.m. 18 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1500 250 Australian Avenue South 19 West Palm Beach. Florida 33401 Suite 1500 20 West Palm Beach. Florida 33401 21 22 Reported By: Cynthia Hopkins. RPR. FPR Reported By: Cynthia Hopkins. RPR. FPR 23 Notary Public. State of Florida Notary Public. State of Florida Prose Court Reporting Services Prose Court Reporting Services 24 Job No.: 1484 Job No.: 1484 25 Page 2 Page 4 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 1 DI THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA 2 CASE NO. 502008CA028058XXXXMB AD 2 CASE No302008CA037319XXXXMB AB 3 3 M. 4 5 Plaintiff. Plaintiff. 6 -vs- VOLUME I OF III 5 7 VOLUME I OF III JEFFREY EPSTEIN. J 8 AN EFISISI, Defendant. 8 9 / Defendants. 10 9 11 10 VI SITION OF 11 VItSITION OF 12 12 13 13 14 Wednesday. March 24. 2010 14 Wednesday. March 24. 2010 10:37 - 6:51 p.m. 10:37 - 6:51 p.m. 15 15 16 16 17 250 Australian Avenue South 17 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1500 Suite 1500 18 West Palm Beach. Florida 33401 16 West Palm Beach. Florida 33401 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 Repotted By: 22 Repotted By: Cynthia Hopkins. RPR. FPR Cynthia Hopkins. RPR. FPR 23 Notary Public. State of Florida 23 Notary Public. State of Florida Prose Court Reporting Services Prose Court Reporting Services 24 Job No.: 1484 24 Job No.: 1484 25 25 1 (Pages 1 to 4) PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. 3501.125-025 CONFIDENTIAL Page 1 of 47 EFTA_00065318 EFTA01246464  Page 5 Page 7 APPEARANCES: 1 2 On behalf of the Plaintiffs. : 2 INDEX SPENCER T. KUVIN. ESQUIRE 3 LEOPOLD KUVIN 4 2925 PGA Boulevard 5 EXAMINATION DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT' Suite 201) 6 5 Palm Beach Garden. Florida 33410 Phone: 6 7 7 On behalf of the Plandiffs...... and BY MR. KUVIN 9 Jane Doe: a 8 9 9 MATTHEW WEISSING. ESQUIRE 10 EXHIBITS FARMERJAFTE MUSSING. EDWARDS 11 _ _ _ 10 FISTOS & LBIRNIAN.P.L 12 425 North Andimvx Avenue 13 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE 11 Suite 2 14 Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 PLAINTIFFS EX. 1 PHOTO 16 12 Phone: 13 On behalf of Jane Does I throu5h K: 15 PLAINTIFFS EL 2 MOE INC.. 24 14 ADAM D. HOROWITZ- ESQUIRE PASSENGER MANIFEST' MERNIEI-STEIN it HOROWITZ. P.A. 16 PLAINTIFFS EX. 3 HYPERION AIR. INC.. 15 18205 Biscayne Boulevard PASSENGER MANIFEST Suite 22114 17 PLAINTIFFS EX. 6 PHOTO 63 16 Miami. a t i PLAINTIFFS EL 7 PHOTO 65 Phone: 18 PLAINTIFFS EX. 8 PHOTO 68 17 E-mail: PLAINTIFFS EX. 9 PHOTO 71 16 On behalf of the PI:midis. 101. 102 and 103: 19 PLAINTIFFS EL 10 PHOTO 100 19 KATHERINE W. EZELI- ESQUIRE PLAINTIFFS EL 11 PHOTO 101 AMY JOSEFSBERG EDERI. ESQUIRE 20 PLAINTIFFS EL 12 PHOTO 103 20 PODHURST ORSECK PLAINTIFFS EX. 4 PHONE MESSAGE PADS 25 wear Flatlet Street 21 Suite WO 21 PLAINTIFFS EL 5 CELLPHONE RECORDS Miami.iiiiiiiiii PLAINTIFFS EL 13 PHOTO 144 22 Phone: 22 23 1Via telephoner 23 24 24 25 25 Page 6 Page 8 1 Appearances continued... 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 On behalf of the Plaintiff. Jane Doe ll: 2 3 ISIDRO MANUEL GARCIA. ESQUIRE — — — GARCIA. ELKINS & BOEHRINGER 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on video 4 224 Datum Avenue. Suite 900 4 record. This is Media No. 1 in the videotaped West Palm Beach Fl ida 33401 5 Phone: 5 deposition of in the matter of 6 6 Jane Doe versus Jeffrey Epstein, et al. Today 7 On behalf of the Defendant: 7 is Wednesday. March 24th. 2010. It is 8 JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER. ESQUIRE ATTERBURY. GOLDBERGER & WEISS. P.A. 8 10:36 a.m. We are here at Prose Court 9 250 Australian Avenue South 9 Reporting. 250 South Australian Avenue. West Suite 1400 10 West ida 33401-5012 10 Palm Beach. Florida. Phony 11 My name is Joe Kozak. I'm the 11 12 videographer. The reporter is Cindy 12 13 On f h Win • 13 Hopkins from Prose Court Reporting Agency. 14 19 Would counsel please introduce 15 yourselves, and then the court reporter 16 will swear in the witness. 17 MR. KUVIN: Good morning. Spencer Kuvin 17 18 on behalf of one of the Plaintiffs. 18 19 MR. HOROWITZ: Adam Horowitz on behalf of 19 20 ALSO PRESENT: 20 Jane Does 2 through 8. And just for the record 21 Jessica Cadwell. Paralegal 21 purposes. the deposition is also being taken in Burman. Critton. Lanier & Coleman. P.A. 22 the federal cases, I believe, case being 22 Joseph Kozak. Videographer Prose Court Reporting Services 23 Jane Doe 2 versus Jeffrey Epstein. 23 24 MR. WEISSING: Matt Weissing on behalf of 24 25 25 three of the Plaintiffs. 2 (Pages 5 to 8 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. CONFIDENTIAL 3501.125-025 Page 2 of 47 EFTA_00065319 EFTA01246465  Page 9 Page 11 1 MR. GARCIA: Sid Garcia for Jane Doe. 1 privilege. 2 Roman Numeral II. 2 MR. KUVIN: I'll agree with that 3 MR. GOLDBERGER: Jack Goldberger on behalf 3 procedure. 4 of Jeffrey Epstein. 4 MR. Anyone object to that 5 MS. CADWELL: Jessica Cadwell. paralegal. 5 procedure? 6 on behalf of Jeffre stein. 6 MR. GOLDBERGER: Actually I think if, in 7 MR. on behalf 7 fact, this deposition is used in a trial, 1 a of the witness. 8 think you would want the lengthier answer as 9 MR. KUVIN: Kathy. your turn. 9 being the answer that is played to the jury. 10 MS. EZELL: Okay. Kathy Ezell and Amy 10 So either you guys can agree that it gets cut 11 Ederi on behalf of Plaintiff, Jane Doe 103. 11 in or she's going to have to -- I can't tell 12 Thereupon. 12 you what to do, but I would suggest that she 13 l l 13 give the lengthier answer each time. 14 Having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was 14 But there's got to be a way that you 15 examined and testified as follows: 15 guys can reach an agreement though, that 16 DIRECT EXAMINATION 16 from a technology perspective, that the 17 BY MR. KUVIN: 17 lengthy answer that she just gave would be 18 Q. Good morning. 18 used during any trial testimony. Can that 19 A. Morning. 19 be done? 20 Q. Couldyougive us your full name, please. 20 MR. KUVIN: I don't know procedurally 21 A. . 21 whether it can be done. 22 Q. il aiave a middle name? 22 MR. GOLDBERGER: I think -- 23 A. 23 MR. KUVIN: I don't know that, well -- 24 Q. Would ou s II that for us? 24 MR. GOLDBERGER: And again, it's not my, 25 A. 25 ifs not my deal. I'm just telling you how Page 10 Page 12 1 Q. What's our current address? 1 we've done it in the past. 2 MR. I'm going to instruct the 2 MR. KUVIN: I hear you. and I have a 3 witness not to answer that question on the 3 number of issues primary, primarily of which 4 basis of her Fifth and 14th Amendment 4 that you're not here to represent anyone S privileges against self-incrimination. 5 currently. 6 MR. KUVIN: Okay. We had spoken before 6 MR. GOLDBERGER: Yeah. I am. I'm 7 with respect to there are likely going to be 7 actually. I'm actually here representing 8 answers similar to that throughout this 8 Jeffrey Epstein. so... 9 deposition. I have agreed to a procedure that 9 MR. KUVIN: Okay. With respect to all the 10 we can do a shortened answer. However you want 10 civil cases. though. you're not here to 11 to handle that. I leave it up to you. But I do 11 represent anyone, so -- 12 agree that whatever the shortened answer is, 12 MR. GOLDBERGER: Yes. I am. 13 that it will satisfy the length. lengthy answer 13 MR. KUVIN: With the exception -- 14 that she would like to give. 14 MR. GOLDBERGER: I represent -- I am --1 15 So, do we want to do that with this 15 don't mean to interrupt you. but I am counsel 16 question, or how do you want to handle 16 of record in the civil cases. 17 that procedurall ? 17 MR. KUVIN: Oka . Okay. 18 MR. Well. I think I have given 18 MR. If we have a stipulation, 19 the instruction. I think she, will give her 19 what's the problem? Are you -- 20 the same instruction in the future to the 20 MR. KUVIN: There is none. 21 extent that it's relevant, and I think that if 21 MR. -- worried about a waiver? 22 we can all just agree that if she simply says 22 MR. GOLDBERGER: No. I'm not worried abou 23 or I simply say "The Fifth Amendment," that 23 that at all. I'm worried about what is played 24 will qualify as giving a sufficient answer to 24 to a jury if this gets tried. 25 -- a, a matter of law. and will invoke that 25 MR. KUVIN: Okay. And I appreciate you 3 (Pages 9 to 12) PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. 3501.125-025 CONFIDENTIAL Page 3 of 47 EFTA_00065320 EFTA01246466  Page 13 Page 15 1 coachingM. but I think he can handle 1 I choose to invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 2 himself pretty adequately now -- 2 BY MR. KUVIN: 3 MR. GOLDBERGER: I have -- 3 Q. Would ou agree with me that you're 4 MR. KUVIN: So I leave it up to -- 4 approximatel 5 MR. GOLDBERGER: I have all the confidence 5 MR. : Same instruction. 6 in . 6 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 7 MR. KUVIN: Mr. with respect to 7 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 8 how you want to handle it. I think we have an 8 BY MR. KUVIN: 9 agreement. 9 Would you agree with me that your eyes are 10 MR. : I'm satisfied that we have 10 11 a stipulation, and I assume if there is ever a 11 MR. Same instruction. 12 trial, that would be played or produced to the 12 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 13 jury that simply by using shorthand, what she's 13 I choose to invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 14 really saying is the lengthier answer now. I'm 14 BY MR. KUVIN: 15 satisfied with that. 15 Q. Would you agree with me that you were born 16 MR. KUVIN: And I agree with that. 16 in 17 BY MR. KUVIN: 17 MR. : Same instruction. 18 Q. Okay. Ma'am, what is your current 18 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 19 address? 19 I choose to invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 20 MR. : Again, I will instruct the 20 BY MR. KUVIN: 21 witness not to answer the question. 21 Q. What are the names of your parents? 22 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 22 MR. : Same instruction. 23 lawyer. I choose to invoke my Fifth Amendment 23 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 24 right. 24 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 25 25 Page 14 Page 16 1 BY MR. KUVIN: 1 BY MR. KUVIN: 2 Q. What is our current phone number? 2 Q. Areyou married or single? 3 MR. : Same instruction. 3 MR. : Same instruction. 4 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 4 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 5 I choose to invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 5 I must to invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 6 BY MR. KUVIN: 6 (Plaintiffs Exhibit No. I was marked for 7 Q. What is our cell hone number? 7 identification.) 8 MR. : Same instruction -- 8 MR. KUVIN: I'm going to show you what 9 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 9 we'll mark as Plaintiffs Exhibit I. 10 I choose to invoke m Fifth Amendment right. 10 And I'll ask the videographer to zoom 11 MR. : You have to let me speak 11 in here fora second. 12 before you answer in case there's an objection 12 BY MR. KUVIN: 13 or any of the other lawyers have an objection. 13 Q. Okay. Ma'am, I am going to show you a 14 BY MR. KUVIN: 14 photograph we've marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 and 15 Q. I am going to show you a photograph. Oh, 15 ask you if you recognize this registered sex 16 what is your date of birth? 16 offender. 17 MR. : Same instruction. 17 MR. : First, object to the form 18 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 18 of the question. It assumes facts not before 19 I choose to invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 19 the witness, and I'll give the witness the same 20 MR. KUVIN: Let's make is easier. 20 instruction as to that question. 21 BY MR. KUVIN: 21 THE WITNESS: At the advice of my lawyer, 22 Q. would ou agree with me that 22 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 23 your date of birth i 23 BY MR. KUVIN: 24 MR. : Same instruction. 24 Q. Would you agree with me that this 25 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 25 registered sex offender's name is Jeffrey Epstein? 4 (Pages 13 to 1 6) PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. 3501.125-025 CONFIDENTIAL Page 4 of 47 EFTA_00065321 EFTA01246467  Page 17 Page 19 1 MR. Same instruction, same 1 question. It's ambiguous and compound. and I 2 objection. 2 will instruct the witness not to answer based 3 THE WITNESS: At the advice of my lawyer, 3 on her Fifth Amendment privilege. 4 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 4 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, S BY MR. KUVIN: 5 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 6 Q. Would you agree with me that Jeffrey 6 BY MR. KUVIN: / Epstein is a sexual offender? 7 Q. And wh did ou do that? 8 MR. Object to the form of the 8 MR. : Object to the form. It's 9 question and instruct the witness not to answer 9 ambiguous, in fact that what? 10 on her Fifth Amendment privilege. 10 BY MR. KUVIN: 11 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer I 11 Q. Why did you bring minor girls to 12 must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 12 Jeffrey Epstein for him to have sex with? 13 BY MR. KUVIN: 13 MR. : Same objection as to forty 14 Q. Would you agree with me that 14 and instruct the witness not to answer. 15 Jeffrey Epstein sexual) abused you? 15 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 16 MR. Objection to the form, 16 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 17 both as to the form of the question as to 17 BY MR. KUVIN: 18 harassing and instruct the witness not to 18 Q. What do ou currently do for a job? 19 answer, based on the Fifth Amendment privilege. 19 MR. : Instruct the witness not 20 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer. 20 to answer the question. 21 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 21 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 22 BY MR. KUVIN: 22 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 23 Q. Would you agree with me that you were a 23 BY MR. KUVIN: 24 minor when Jeffrey Epstein first had sexual 24 I. 25 relations with you? Page 18 Page 20 1 MR. Object to the form. It 1 MR. Instruct the witness not 2 assumes facts not before the witness. It is a 2 to answer the question. 3 compound question and I would instruct the 3 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 4 witness not to answer based on her Fifth 4 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. S Amendment privilege. 5 BY MR. KUVIN: 6 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer. 6 ii 7 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. I 8 BY MR. KUVIN: 8 MR. Same instruction. 9 Q. Would you agree with me that you have had 9 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 10 sex with Jeffrey E tein? 10 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 11 MR. Same instruction. 11 BY MR. KUVIN: 12 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer. 12 I. 13 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 14 BY MR. KUVIN: 9 15 Q. Would you agree with me that you first had 15 MR. Instruct the witness not 16 sex with Jeffrey Epstein when you were under the age 16 to answer the question. 17 of 18? 17 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 18 MR. Same instruction. 18 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 19 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer. 19 BY MR. KUVIN: 20 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 20 • 21 BY MR. KUVIN: 22 Q. Would you agree with me. ma'am, that you 23 brought numerous underage girls to Jeffrey Epstein 23 MR. Object to the form. It's 24 so that he could have sex with them? 24 compound and assumes facts not present before 25 MR. Object to the form of the 25 the witness, and I instruct the witness not to S (Pages 17 to 20) PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. 3501.125-025 CONFIDENTIAL Page 5 of 47 EFTA_00065322 EFTA01246468  Page 21 Page 23 1 answer the question based on her Fifth 1 witness, and I will instruct the witness not to 2 Amendment privilege. 2 answer based on her Fifth Amendment privilege. 3 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 3 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 4 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 4 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 5 BY MR. KUVIN: 5 BY MR. KUVIN: 6 Q. Who introduced you to Jeffrey Epstein the 6 Q. Would you agree with me that 7 first time that ou met him? 7 Jeffrey Epstein owns numerous planes, private 8 MR. Same instruction. 8 planes? 9 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 9 MR. Instruct the witness not 10 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 10 to answer. 11 BY MR. KUVIN: 11 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 12 Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell introduce you to 12 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 13 Jeffrey Epstein for the first time? 13 BY MR. KUVIN: 14 MR. Same instruction. 14 Q. And you've been on every one of those 15 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 15 private planes: isn't that true? 16 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 16 MR. : Object to the form. It 17 BY MR. KUVIN: 17 assumes facts not before the witness, and I 18 Q. When was the first time you were in 18 will instruct the witness not to answer based 19 Jeffrey Epstein's home located on El Brillo Way on 19 on her Fifth Amendment privilege. 20 Palm Beach Island? 20 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 21 MR. Object to the form of the 21 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 22 question as compound and assuming facts not 22 BY MR. KUVIN: 23 before the witness. And I instruct the witness 23 Q. Ma'am, isn't it true that you've seen the 24 not to answer based on her Fifth Amendment 24 passenger manifest for Jeffrey Epstein's plane? 25 privilege. 25 MR. Object to the form. It Page 22 Page 24 1 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 1 assumes facts that are not established as known 2 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 2 to this witness, and I instruct the witness not 3 BY MR. KUVIN: 3 to answer the question based on her Fifth 4 Q. Would you agree with me that 4 Amendment privilege. 5 Jeffrey Epstein owns a home at 358 El Brillo Way, 5 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 6 Palm Beach Island. Florida? 6 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 7 MR. : Instruct the witness not 7 MR. KUVIN: Let me show you what we'll 8 to answer based on her Fifth Amendment 8 mark as Exhibit 2. 9 privilege. 9 10 THE WITNESS: On instruction of my 10 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 was marked for 11 counsel, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment 11 identification.) 12 right. 12 MR. KUVIN: Thank you. 13 BY MR. KUVIN: 13 MR. : Do you want to zoom in on 14 Q. Would you agree with me that you've been 14 it like you did the last time? 15 in that home numerous times? 15 MR. KUVIN: No. that's fine. 16 MR. Instruct the witness not 16 MR. : Take your time. 17 to answer the question based on her Fifth 17 MR. KUVIN: And flip through. 18 Amendment privilege. 18 BY MR. KUVIN: 19 THE WITNESS: On instruction of my lawyer, 19 Q. All right. Ma'am. would you agree with me 20 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 20 that this is a passenger manifest for one of 21 BY MR. KUVIN: 21 Jeffrey Epstein's ai lanes? 22 Q. Would you agree with me that you have gone 22 MR. : Instruct the witness not 23 on Jeffrey E stein's lane numerous times? 23 to answer the question based on her Fifth 24 MR. . Object to the form. It 24 Amendment privilege. 25 assumes fact. that are not present for the 25 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 6 (Pages 21 to 24) PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. 3501.125-025 CONFIDENTIAL Page 6 of 47 EFTA_00065323 EFTA01246469  Page 25 Page 27 1 lawyer I must exercise my Fifth Amendment 1 Amendment privilege. 2 right. 2 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 3 BY MR. KUVIN: 3 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 4 Q. And would you agree with me that you 4 BY MR. KUVIN: 5 appear as a passenger on these flight manifests on 5 Q. Would you also agree with me that the two 6 numerous occasions? 6 unknown females listed on the passenger manifest 7 MR. Object to the form. It 7 marked as Exhibit 2 were underage girls, under the 8 assumes facts not established as known to this 8 age of IS? 9 witness, and I instruct the witness not to 9 MR. : Object to the form. It 10 answer the question. 10 calls for speculation. Also it's not been 11 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 11 established this witness has any knowledge of 12 lawyer, I must exercise my Fifth Amendment 12 this document and instruct her not to answer 13 right. 13 based on her Fifth Amendment privilege. 14 BY MR. KUVIN: 14 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 15 Q. Would you agree with me that your name 15 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 16 does, in fact, appear on the passenger manifest for 16 BY MR. KUVIN: 17 these planes for this lane? 17 Q. Would you agree with me that the girls 18 MR. Same objection and same 18 that are listed as females one, and the second 19 instruction. 19 female for this flight of January II, 2005, from 20 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 20 West Palm Beach to the U.S. Virgin Islands, that 21 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 21 those two females were under the age of 17? 22 BY MR. KUVIN: 22 MR. : Same objection. It has 23 Q. Who are the two females that appear on the 23 not been established the witness has any 24 passenger manifest for January II, 2005. on the 24 knowledge of this document. It calls for her 25 first page of Exhibit 2? 25 to speculate, and I instruct her not to answer Page 26 Page 28 1 MR. I'll object to the form, 1 based on her Fifth Amendment privilege. 2 and it has not been established this witness 2 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 3 knows anything about this document, and I will 3 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 4 instruct her not to answer based on the Fifth 4 BY MR. KUV1N: S Amendment privilege. 5 Q. Would you agree with me that the two 6 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 6 females shown on the flight with you of January II, 7 lawyer I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 7 2005 were under the a e of 16? 8 BY MR. KUVIN: 8 MR. Same objection as to form 9 Q. Do you agree with me that you took a 9 It has not been established this witness knows 10 flight on Jeffrey Epstein's plane from West Palm 10 anything about whether there were these 11 Beach to the U.S. Virgin Islands. St. Thomas on 11 witnesses, these females and who they are, so 12 January II, 2005? 12 it's asking her to speculate. and I instruct 13 MR. Instruct the witness not 13 her not to answer based on her Fifth Amendment 14 to answer the question based on her Fifth 14 privilege. 15 Amendment privilege. 15 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 16 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 16 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment 17 lawyer I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 17 privilege. 18 BY MR. KUVIN: 18 BY MR. KUV1N: 19 Q. Would you agree with me that on that 19 Q. Ma'am, you were on that flight of 20 flight were you. Jeffrey Epstein, 20 January 11. 2005. wereyou not? 21 and two unknown females? 21 MR. I instruct the witness not 22 MR. Object to the form. Again 22 to answer based on her Fifth Amendment 23 assumes facts that have not been established 23 privilege. 24 this witness has any knowledge of and instruct 24 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 25 the witness not to answer based on her Fifth 25 lawyer I must invoke my Firth Amendment right. 7 (Pages 25 to 28) PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. 3501.125-025 CONFIDENTIAL Page 7 of 47 EFTA_00065324 EFTA01246470  Page 29 Page 31 1 BY MR. KUVIN: 1 MR. Same instruction. 2 Q. You also agree with me that the two girls 2 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 3 that are listed as on that flight with you of 3 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 4 January 11, 2005, were under the age of 15 years 4 BY MR. KUVIN: 5 old? 5 Q. Who is 6 MR. Object to the form. It 6 MR. : Same instruction. 7 calls for speculation, lack of personal 7 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 8 knowledge, and instruct the witness not to 8 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 9 answer based on her Fifth Amendment privilege. 9 BY MR. KUVIN: 10 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 10 Q. Who is Mark Zeff. 11 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 11 MR. Same instruction. 12 BY MR. KUVIN: 12 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 13 Q. Would you agree with me that the two 13 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 14 females listed as being on that flight with you of 14 BY MR. KUVIN: 15 January I 1 of 2005 were under the age of 14 years 15 Q. Who is David Mullen? 16 old? 16 MR. : Same instruction. 17 MR. Object to the form. It 17 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 18 calls for speculation. The witness has no 18 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 19 personal knowledge and instruct the witness not 19 BY MR. KUVIN: 20 to answer based on her Fifth Amendment 20 Q. Who is Todd Meister? 21 privilege. 21 MR. : Same instruction. 22 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 22 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 23 lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 23 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 24 BY MR. KUVIN: 24 BY MR. KUVIN: 25 Q. Would you agree with me that the two 25 Q. Who is Jean-Luc Brunel? Page 30 Page 32 1 females listed as being on the flight with you of 1 MR. Same instruction. 2 January II, 2005, from West Palm Beach to the U.S. 2 THE WITNESS: On the advice of my lawyer, 3 Virgin Islands, with Jeffrey Epstein as well, were 3 I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 4 under the age of 13 years old and you were aware of 4 BY MR. KUVIN: S that? 5 Q. Ma'am, would you agree with me that all of 6 MR. Object to the form both as 6 the names I just recently mentioned where you 7 compound. it also assumes facts that it has not 7 invoked your Fifth Amendment, were involved in a 8 been established this witness has any knowledge 8 conspiracy to abuse underaged girls, girls under the 9 of. calls for her to speculate, and I instruct 9 age of 18 for sexual ain and pleasure? 10 her not to answer based on her Fifth Amendment 10 MR. : Object to the form of the 11 privilege. 11 question. It calls for a legal conclusion. It 12 THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my 12 is compound. It calls for her to speculate. 13 lawyer I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. 13 There is no basis for her to be able to give a 14 BY MR. KUVIN: 14 legal opinion as to what a conspiracy is

EFTA00722980.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 9 pages

Condensed Transcript IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA Plaintiff. vs. Case No. 502008CA028058 XXXXMB AD JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE DONALD W. HAFELE July 31, 2009 8:30 a.m. 205 N. Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Jennifer DiLorenzo, court reporter Toll Free: 800.211.3376 Facsimile: 954.331.4418 c Suite 1300 515 East Las Olas Boulevard ESQUIR E ampasy „MarsaderOstlaC Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00722980 Proceedings July 31, 2009 1 3 IN IRS 411=1/ COUNT OF THE ISTE JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN 1 Proceedings in the Matter OM. vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND FOR PALM Ma COUNW, MAIM 2 Jtiy 31.2009 8:30 3 THE COURT: Good morning, gentlemen. 4 We're here this morning on the Plaintiffs Plaintiff, motions to add punitive damages. Who will be vs. Case R. 302004CA02$05$ 6 arguing on behalf of the Plaintiff? ICOnNS AD JEMMY 8087[10, 7 MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Alright, Mr. Edwards. Defendant. 9 MR. EDWARDS: Do I need to go to the 10 podium or is right here fine? P*00493)17106 SirOle /NI 11 THE COURT: Whichever you prefer. NONORASLC JUDGE DONAID N HAMELIN 12 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, with our motion July 31, 2009 13 we filed - and, I believe. Your Honor has it - son a.m. - 9,01 a.m. 14 the decovery that was submitted to Mr. Epstein. 205 K. D1Ale IllgANAY 15 which consists of Requests for Admissions. meet Vela Beta., FL 33101 16 Requests for Production, interrogatories. as 17 well as Interrogatory responses under oath by my 18 client. 19 THE COURT: Do you have any cases that Jennifer DiLorenin, Court reporter 20 speak to the presumption relative to the 21 Defendant exercising his Fifth and Sixth 22 Amendment rights during the deposition testimony 23 and/or during any other discovery? 24 MR. EDWARDS: Sure, Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: I Wow that Mr. Odeon in his 2 4 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 3. reply memorandum Indicated some conflict In 2 2 terms of the nature of the discussions of the 3 On behaA of the Plantiff: 4 ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT & ADLER 3 appellate courts relative to that Issue. BY: WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESO., 4 MR, EDWARDS: May I approach? 5 lamer Park Office Tower Suite 675 5 THE COURT: Thank you. 6 225 NE Mizner Boulevard 6 MR. EDWARDS: I'm going to present the Boca Raton, FL 33432 7 case of Fraser vs. Security and Investment out 7 561.322-776t wbergerenralawcom of the Fourth DOA. 9 The pertinent part, It says: "Our ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT & ADLER 9 BY: BRADLEY J. EDWARDS. ESQ, 10 conclusion Is consistent with the prevailing 401 East Las Olas Boulevard 11 rule that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid to Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 12 adverse Inferences against parties to civil 13. 954.522.3456 13 actions when they refuse to testify in response bedwardserna 14 to probative evidence offered against them: the 12 13 On behalf of the Defendant: 15 amendment 'does not preclude the inference where 14 BURMAN, CSIMON, LLITTIER & COLEMAN 16 the privilege Is claimed by a party to a civil BY: ROBERT D. CANTON, JR., ESO.. 15 515 North Rapier Drive 17 cause? Sotto 400 18 It skips down and says: 'Such a rule is 16 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 19 both logical and utilitarian. A party may not 17 20 trample upon the rights of others and then 18 19 21 escape the consequences by invoking a 20 22 constitutional privilege - at least not In a 21 23 clvii setting." 22 23 24 The final paragraph on that page says: 24 25 'Nor are we persuaded that the fact of 25 Toll Free: 800.211.3376 Facsimile: 954.331.4418 0 Suite 1300 ESQUIRE 515 East Las Olas Boulevard EFTA00722981 Proceedings July 31, 2009 5 7 1 invocation of the privilege is irrelevant and 1 we're not talking about 400, which, I believe. 2 immaterial: 'In the case' -- Sony, 'Mr. 2 is the number known to law enforcement, we are 3 Justice Brandeis... observed that 'Silence Is 3 talking about thousands of children, and it is 4 often evidence of the most persuasive 4 through a very intricate and complicated system 5 character:" that he devised where he has as many as 20 6 Clearly, this case, out of our district 6 people working underneath him that he is paying 7 court. is an indication that adverse inferences 7 well to schedule these appointments, to locate a may be drawn. 8 these glds. 9 Right now wo are at a punitive damages He particularly goes atter a very 10 stage. We are not at a stage where we are 10 vulnerable and impressionable age group that — 11 talking about the admissibility of evidence. We 11 THE COURT: To use the quotation, 'the 12 are — 12 evidence will show the Defendant sought out 13 THE COURT: Speaking only of a proffer to 13 underprivileged and economically disadvantaged 14 establish punitive damages as required under 14 minor females: and later go on to say, 15 768.721, correct? 15 'influenced them away from the typical 16 MR. EDWARDS: Exactly, and I was going to, 16 adolescent lifestyle as a result of his 17 for the record, read that part of 768.721: "In 17 allegedly criminal acts.' 18 a civi action, there is a" -- 18 MR. EDWARDS: And that is exactly what 19 THE COURT: I think we can skip that. 19 he's done. The age group begins as young as 20 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. 20 12 years old and as old as 16 years old. There 21 THE COURT: The statute speaks for itself 21 will be evidence that at 16 years old, many of 22 and its a part of the record belay, so why 22 the girls are told, 'You're getting too old for 23 don't you go ahead and proceed? 23 24 MR. EDWARDS: The reasonable showing, by 24 He very dearly targets this specific age 25 way of proffer, that there is an Intentional 25 group and has a method to this; that is, "Get 6 8 1 misconduct or gross negligence on behalf of the 1 the girls inside the house and I wiN do the 2 Defendant. 2 rest, and he creates this God-like aura for 3 Intentional misconduct is defined as 'the 3 these girls and -- 4 Defendant had actual knowledge of the wrong 4 THE COURT: Let's talk about - pardon me 5 per conduct and the high probabilty for interrupting you - let's talk about the 6 that injury or damage to the claimant would 6 precise deln=at are g made here. You're 7 result and, despite that knowledge, 7 dealing with NMI and theyre pseudonyms - 8 intentionally pursued that course of conduct for purposes of this litigation. Why don't we 9 resulting in injury or damage.' 9 speak to those two individuals at this juncture 10 In this case, we have intentional 10 and how the punitive damage proffer is 11. misconduct of the worse kind. This is a case 11 sufficient or insufficient relative to them 12 that has been presented to the public through 12 individually, please? 13 public relations people for the Defendant at 13 I understand the global allegations and I 14 times as 'five or six bad under-aged prostitutes 14 understand the allegedly wide scale situation 15 from a high school that. as one of their stops, 15 that you're suggesting as you've alleged here, 16 wound up at Mr. Epstein'S home,' and that's not 16 but I want to go now to the precise claims trade 17 the case at all. 17 by these two Plaintiffs who are in front of the 18 What the evidence is really going to show 18 Court today, and whether or not that proffer is 19 is that Mr. Epstein - at least dating back as 19 sufficient to satisfy the case law, inducing 20 far as our investigation and resources have 20 the case that Mr. Clifton cited, and that is: 21 permitted, back to 1997 or '98 - has every 21 The Estate of Despain, D-E-S-P-A-I-N. vs. Avante 22 single day of his life, made an attempt to 22 Group, Inc., which is found at 900 So.2d. 637, 23 sexually abuse children. 23 and that was a Fifth District Court of Appeal 24 We're not talking about five, we're not 24 case, decided in 2005. 25 talking about 20, we're not talking about 100, 25 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, Your Honor, and that Toll Free: 800.211.3376 Facsimile: 954.331.4418 Suite 1300 ESQUIRE 515 East Las Dias Boulevard EFTA00722982  July 31, 2009 Proceedings 9 11 the case that states: 'a 'proffer according to 1 the Defendant. I also observed sexual acts and 2 traditional notions of the term, connotes merely 2 had sexual acts perpetrated on me and was forced 3 an 'offer of evidence and neither the term 3 to perform on me. including oral sex and other 4 standing alone nor the statute itself calls for 4 activities. At various times I was unclothed, 5 an adjudication of the underlying veracity...is 5 as was Defendant and others. At all times 6 merely a representation of what evidence the 6 material, I was a child under the age of 7 defendant proposes to present? 7 18 years. I was a victim of various criminal a We can turn to the sworn Interrogatory 8 acts and sexual exploitation. I was Induced and 9 answers, No. 8, wherein and, similarly, 9 coerced by the Defendant into acts of 10 words, states: 'I 10 prostitution? Ng, in slightly different 11 was touched, battered, and fondled by Defendant 11 THE COURT: Thank you. You were going to 12 Jeffrey Epstein during the Incidents described 12 speak to a legal point -- 13 in the complaint. I observed the Defendant 13 MR. EDWARDS: Right. 14 touch and fondle himself. I observed the 14 THE COURT: — before I asked you to read 15 Defendant ejaculate numerous times. I was made 15 into the record those Interrogatory answers. Go 16 to touch the Defendant. I also observed sexual 16 ahead. 17 acts and had sexual acts perpetrated on me by 17 MR. EDWARDS: Where we left off was the 18 Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. At various times I 18 coercion into prostitution. What makes these 19 was unclothed, as was the Defendant and others. 19 crimes so egregious is the fact that these girls 20 At all times material, I was a child under the 20 that we're talking about were all beginning 21 age of 18 years old. The Defendant also used me 21 their grooming process with Mr. Epstein when 22 to bring him other minor girls and he controlled 22 theyre 14 and 15 and 16 years old. 23 and brainwashed me" -- 23 There is a specific statute, which we have 24 THE COURT: Just a second. 24 filed, and a cause of action under our 25 (Telephone interruption.) 25 complaint, that is under 796.09, Cowden. civil 10 12 1 MR. EDWARDS: "and brainwashed me Into 1 cause of action. 2 believing this lifestyle was healthy and normal 2 Reading 796.09, Paragraph 1: 'A person 3 for a girl my age. I was a victim of various 3 has a cause of action for compensatory and 4 criminal acts and sexual exploitation. I was ♦ punitive damages' - this is in the statute - 5 induced and coerced by Defendant into acts of • 'against a person who coerced them into 6 prostitution' 6 prostitution," and it goes on to define what 7 While we're on the coercion and 7 coercion means, and it is exactly what happened prostitution, there is a specific — • in this case. 9 THE COURT: Before you move on, thars 9 This statute allows for punitive damages 10 LM.'s -- 10 on a statutory level irrespective of the age of 11 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, Your Honor. 11 the person that is coerced into prostitution. 12 THE COURT: — Answer to IntesTitones? 12 THE COURT: And the coercion that you're 13 Why don't you read into the record 's Answer 13 talking about are the alleged acts as between 14 to Interrogatories so the record is dear? 14 these two Plaintiffs and Mr. Epstein as opposed 15 MR. EDWARDS: I apologize, Your Honor. 15 to, I think, there's something In one of the 16 THE COURT: Take your time. 16 Interrogatories that suggests that there may 17 MR. EDWARDS: Answer to Interrogatory No. 17 have been prostitution that followed, at least la 8 for.. Indicates: 'My injuries arc 18 one of the Plaintiffs, involvement with Mr. 19 emotional and psychological and are the direct 19 Epstein, but you're speaking solely about the 20 result of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's actions. 20 prostitution Issues as It concerns the 21 I was touched, battered, and fondled by the 21 Plaintiffs here and Epstein; is that accurate? 22 Defendant during the incidents described in the 22 MR. EDWARDS: I believe, If I understand 23 complaints. I observed the Defendant touch and 23 what you are saying, I mean, In terms of 24 fondle himself. I observed the Defendant 24 damages, if one of the Plaintiffs - and I can 25 ejaculate numerous times. I was made to touch 25 represent - if one of the Plaintiffs was led Toll Free: 800.211.3376 Facsimile: 954.331.4418 Suite 1300 ESQVIRE, 515 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale FL 33301 EFTA00722983 Proceedings July 31, 2009 13 15 1 into a life of prostitution after being 1 intentional misconduct and/or gross negligence. 2 indoctrinated into this deviant lifestyle at an 2 I think the record is very dear at this 3 early age by Mr. Epstein - she was not a 3 point, especially after this proffer, that if 4 prostitute prior to that • and I relate that 4 any case is deservant of punitive damages being 5 similar to kids of that age being brought over added, its this one. 6 to somebody's house that is as powerful and 6 THE COURT: AlrigM. Thank you. I'll 7 wealthy as him and he has, let's say, cocaine on 7 give you a couple minutes to wrap up after Mr. 8 the table, and they do that for three years. 8 Critton finishes his argument They think it's fun at the time. but after that MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, Your Honor. 10 they have this addiction that continues on. 10 THE COURT: Thank you. 11 This Is something similar to what happened to 11 MR. CRITTON: May It please the Court. As 12 one of the clients. 12 the Court knows, I represent Mr. Epstein in this 13 But, yes, the coercion into prostitution 13 matter. 14 is something that on a statutory level already 14 Your Honor, a couple of things to start - 15 allows for punitive damages, and that's 15 the case that Mr. Edwards cites deals with 16 irrespective of the age. 16 inferences, deals with inferences at trial time 17 THE COURT: Again, I'm trying to 17 as distinct from inferences that, I believe, are 18 understand the factual basis. There's 18 sufficient to catty the day, so-to-speak, in the 19 allegations that Mr. Epstein paid these young 19 absence of other evidence with Mr. Epstein's 20 ladies $200 to massage him and then subsequent 20 claim of Fifth Amendment privilege, As well, we 21 thereto, there was some type of alleged sexual 21, cited to the court cases - and I'll get to in 22 activity. Are you speaking to that specifically 22 just a minute - that specifically address that 23 when you're talking about the statutory remedy 23 issue. 24 or are you speaking about something distinct 24 Secondly, we're not here on - and I think 25 from that? 25 the Court, I think, I kind of at least got the 14 16 1 MR. EDWARDS: No, theta specifically what 1 drift is we're not here on other claims - we're 2 I am talking about — 2 here on ■. and ■.'s claim today to add 3 THE COURT: Okay. 3 punitive damages and, In fact, 'Do they meet the 4 MR. EDWARDS: -- Mr. Epstein paying them 4 standard under the applicable statute in this 5 arid using their age, their economic - their lack 5 instance? 6 of wealth - the fact that these are poor, 6 What I think Is the most striking part 7 disadvantaged children with very NW parental 7 about this - and while I believe that the guidance to his advantage to induce them Into 8 evidence may be - their perception, the 9 acts of prostitution. 9 Plaintiffs' perception of the evidence - may be 10 THE COURT: II give you two minutes to 10 afferent than ourselves, but I think the 11 wrap up, please. 11 evidence in this case will show, at least ■. 12 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. 12 and ■., were prostitutes before they ever met 13 Your Honor while I know that we are 13 Mr. Epstein, they remain prostitutes, and they 14 focusing on and there are certain 3.4 are still prostitutes today. 15 defenses that have been made such as. 'The girls 15 THE COURT: But is my role today one of 16 were' - "we didn't know that they were over 18, 16 weighing the evidence or one of determining 17 otherwise we wouldn't have done this,' where we 17 whether or not there's a sufficient record In 18 are going to be able to show there are hundreds 18 order to allow a punitive damage claim to stand? 19 and hundreds and hundreds of girls and none of 19 I mean, in one of the cases, I believe - 20 them were over the age of 18. 20 it's the case of State of Wisconsin Investment 21 Many of these girls, including my clients. 21 Board vs. Plantation Square Associates, that's 22 told him that they were under the age of 18 and 22 found at 761 F.Supp 1569 - Judge Hugler 23 he continued to do this misconduct, which Is 23 (phonetic) of the federal court provided an 24 exactly what the statute or what the punitive 24 excellent discussion of the distinction between 25 damages statute speaks to when it talks about 25 the proofs necessary to sustain a claim for Toll Free: 800.211.3376 Facsimile: 954.331.4418 Suite 1300 ESQUIRE 515 East Las Olas Boulevard EFTA00722984 Proceedings July 31, 2009 17 19 punitive damages oven at summary judgment, much 1 FBI agent and a U.S. attorney that was there at 2 less a trial, and compared that with the 2 the time - and she talked about going over to 3 relatively lighter burden of simply making a 3 Mr. Epstein's house. She said, "I had a fake 4 proffer of record evidence to support a claim ID." She was told to make certain that she was for punitive damages. 5 18. She told Mr. Epstein she was 18, and she 6 MR CANTON: Right 6 said it was her understanding that all of the 7 THE COURT: Aren't we at that stage: that 7 other girls that she brought for this horrific a Is, the latter stage right now? 8 experience - she continued to bring other girls 9 MR. CFUTTON: Yes, and I very well 9 and go herself on a number of occasions. 10 understand the distinction and. I believe. I 10 She said that she, herself -- On Page 8, 11 understand what the Court's rote is in this 11 it asks, "Did she ever call you?" - and I assume 12 particular Instance In making that 12 that was someone else - and she goes. 'No. I 13 determination. 13 gave Jeffrey my number and, I said, you know, if 14 A coupe of the issues though, In 14 you want me to give you a massage again, :5 particular • with a camera hero today. for some 15 basically I'm more than anxious to come: 16 unknown reason, showing up at this hearing - is 16 On Page 9, gi says, "I willingly took' - 17 there were references to drugs, alcohol, other 17 'so I willingly, the first time, took off my top 18 instances that are not applicable to this case. 18 when I gave him the massage and nothing more :9 There's no pleadings on that particular issue, 19 than that: 20 and I'm concerned about that, is that there's an 20 She goes on to say in her testimony at 21 attempt to jack this up in the media, as I said, 21 Page 10, her sworn statement, "I said, I told 22 with the camera here today, for no other 22 Jeffrey, 'I heard that you like massages 23 hearing. Ks ridiculous under the 23 topless.'" 24 circumstances, and to make all of these wild 24 "And he said like, yeah.' He said, 'But 25 allegations against Mr. Epstein for which there 25 you don't have to do anything that you don't 18 20 1 is absolutely no evidentiary proof nor was that 1 feel comfortable with.' 2 submitted here in support of their proffer, I 2 "And I said. 'Okay,' but I willingly took 3 did want to address at that. 3 it off' - this is. at the time. This is her 4 So let me get to the heart of the issue. 4 sworn testimony. 5 I think the most distinguishing part of this 5 At Page 17, the police officer or the FBI 6 it particular case that's different; that is, 6 agent says, "and when he turned over then did he 7 and is the tact that II. gave a sworn 7 touch you at all or was he just' Her answer 8 statement to the FBI in this instance. was, "No. I did not touch him. he did not touch 9 Again, there's a strong distinction. She 9 me. He didn't even want.." and I assume to 10 gave a sworn statement back in '05 or In '06. 10 'touch you' 11 She had - did - she had an attorney, Mr. 11 She goes on to say, 'He didn't want me to 12 Eisenberg, it was before she had a civil lawyer 12 touch him and he didn't touch me.' 13 who's seeking millions of dollars under these 13 She goes on and on in this statement, 14 circumstances, and the testimony of.. at that 14 .., In the statement and she says, 'We had 15 time was very significant and It flies direcily 15 16 In the face of her 'sworn testimony' or her 16 'It was positive,' on Page 18. 17 "sworn interrogatories.' 17 On Page 19, 'You know, I would wear 18 The Court had Mr. Edwards read inn's 18 panties. Willingly one time, because wo were 19 answer and M.'s answer to their 19 making jokes and everything, and willingly one 20 Interrogatories as to what a6egedly occurred 20 time, I had, yes, I was totally nude, but I was 23. with Mr. Epstein and, 'Oh, surprise,' they were 21 fine with that.' 22 almost verbatim, word for word, as to what 22 She talks about within the statement the 23 allegedly happened. 23 other girls that she brought over. Again, she's 24 But at the time of her sworn statement to 24 testified or she gives the Interrogatory answer 25 the FBI.. said on 4/24/07 - again, it was an 25 that this was outrageous to her, but, yet she Toll Free: 800.211.3376 Facsimile: 954.331.4418 Suite 1300 ESQUIRE, 515 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00722985 Proceedings July 31, 2009 21. 23 brought other girls to experience this. She 1 and.. in their Answers to 2 says - now that she has a civil lawyer seeking 2 Interrogatories have made all sorts of, what we 3 money damages - now 'it's a bad experience." 3 believe In part, are baseless or In large part 4 Now all of a sudden. "He touched me, he did 4 baseless alleations, but we also have sworn these things to me.' 5 testimony off.. on this instance. 6 She references - at least, on Page 29 of 6 We don't have it of.., but we have.. 7 the statement, Judge - there's a 'W" that's 7 testifying about her own experience under oath: a referenced. "W' I would represent to bell. In That it was positive; that he never used force, 9 the . complaint, and I think we established 9 that she willingly did a number of times 10 that when Mr. Berger and I were a aT! ng a prior 10 including giving topless massages; that Mr. 11 molten to you. So she talks about.. on Page 11 Epstein never touched her; that she never 12 29. 12 touched him inappropriately, all she did was 33 That's when she starts saying, she says, 13 basically give him massages; that.., in this 14 TUT - "she; meaning.., 'was my baby's 14 instance, as well as all the other girls that 15 father's girlfriend al the time' 15 she took, she spoke with them afterwards, they 16 Then on Page 30, "How old wasS? 16 begged to go back to Mr. Epstein's home, and 17 the was 17." 17 none of them, not one of them ever complained. 18 Alright, so you have 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. 18 So there's a large chasm between what is 19 You haves. saying 'W" was 17 at the time. 19 now being asserted In Answers to Interrogatories 20 "And what happened when W came over?' 20 and mere allegations In the complaint between 21 She said the same thing. "She went a few 21 what the sworn testimony, at least., was 22 times.' 22 under the circumstances, as it relates to 23 On Page 31,n testified under oath to 23 herself and what she was told by.. and other 24 the FBI and the United Slates attorii:None of 24 girls. 25 my girls ever had a problem. And NM call 25 Thank you, Your Honor. 22 24 1 me. They begged me, you know, for us to go to 1 THE COURT: Thank you. 2 Jeffrey's house because they loved Jeffrey. 2 Mr. Edwards, Ill give you a couple 3 Jeffrey is a respectful man, he really Is. I 3 minutes here. 4 mean, he all thought we were of age, always, 4 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, I want to that's what's so sad about it.' 5 address the statement that was made by.. to 6 And she goes on, Page 36, and the FBI says 6 the FBI and how that even came about. This is a to her, 'Now, when you were working for him, you 7 girl who, at the time of the statement, was 8 were going over to Jeffrey's house to give him 8 faith/ unaware of the investigation against Mr. 9 massages, did you have a boyfriend? 9 Epstein, who is now, as we know, a convicted sex 10 10 offender. 11 'And how did your boyfriend feel about 11 An attorney showed up to her house, paid 12 it?" 12 for by Mr. Epstein, to represent her despite - 13 'He was" --S. says, 'He was a Jealous 13 and told her that, "For your role, you could 14 little boy, but he didn't care, 'Bring home the 14 possibly be implicated In some wrongdoing.' 15 bacon,'" and the statement goes on and on, Your 15 MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, just — 16 Honor. I know you've had an opportunity read It 16 MR. EDWARDS: He represent — 17 before and I reference again today. 17 MR. CRITTON: -- note my (Medial. This 18 There's clearly a distinction conflict 18 Is complete hearsay here. He was aware of what 19 between., now that she has a civil lawyer 19 was filed. He didn't file any affidavits for 20 and she wants money, versus at the time that she 20 his client in opposition. I would object to any 21 didn't want money and she gave a statement under 21 of this. 22 oath to the FBI and the United States attorney's 22 THE COURT: Alright. I don't want to get 23 office. 23 Into any of the details. I don't third( it's 24 I recognize the Court's rote in this. I 24 necessary at this juncture, which probably leads 25 recognize the standard. I recognize that both 25 me to my question to you; that Is: Is the Toll Free: 800.211.3376 Facsimile: 954.331.4418 Suite 1300 ESQVunIR, 515 East Las Olas Boulevard EFTA00722986  July 31, 2009 Proceedings 25 27 weighing of evidence appropriate at this 1 The Court finds that, while I appreciate 2 juncture? 2 Mr. Critton's argument and while I appreciate 3 MR. EDWARDS: No, Your Honor, I don't 3 his submission, that essentially at this stage. 4 believe that's the standard at this stage 4 respectfully, he is, at this point, presenting anyway, and I don't think that Mr. Craton 5 countervailing evidentiary submissions. 6 believes that either. 6 The Court further goes on in paraphrasing 7 Just so the record's clear, we had nothing 7 and then directly quoting Judge Hugler 8 to do with the video camera being here, although 'Therefore a proffer is merely a representation that was implied. I don't know who did. 9 of what evidence the defendant proposes to 10 don't know it it was Mr. Critton, but it wasn't 10 present and is not actual evidence' Actually, IL me. 11 that's a quote from prim vs. State. 841 So.2d. 12 THE COURT: Dan is always welcome here. 12 455, 462, and that, I believe, is a Florida 13 MR. EDWARDS: It's perfectly fine, but I 13 Supreme Court case, even though the citation 14 don't Ike that being on the record, that it 14 itself is not complete. 15 looks Ike I did it when I didn't. 15 It goes on to say importantly - and that 16 THE COURT: I understand. We have a 16 is in the Despain case -'A reasonable showing 17 record here. The official record Is being taken 17 by evidence in the record would typically 18 down by our fine court reporter. so. 18 include depositions, interrogatories, and 19 MR. EDWARDS: Either way, sounds like what 19 requests for admissions that have been filed 20 we just heard, that the reason that punitive 20 with the court. Hence, an evidentiary hearing 21 should not be allowed here is because these 21 where witnesses testify and evidence is offered 22 14-year-old girls did this willingly. 22 and scrutinized under the pertinent evidentiary 23 We know that they're 14 years old, Mr. 23 rules, as in a trial, is neither contemplated 24 Cotton knows they were 14, 15 year olds. There 24 nor mandated by the statute in order to 25 were message pads and scheduling books in 25 determine whether a reasonable basis has been 26 28 1 Epstein's possession indicating the dates, which 1 established to plead punitive damages,' and I'll 2 would show how old those girls were, and that's 2 admit this citation from the Fifth District 3 evidence that will be presented in this case. 3 Court of Appeal, but, again, that is cited in 4 There aro serious statutes to protect 4 Despain. 5 these kids from this kind of conduct, and these 5 Likewise, in Strasser vs. Yalarnanchl, 677 6 second and third degree felonies were committed 6 Sold. 22, which is a Florida Fourth District 7 repeatedly against them, and this is a case 7 Court of Appeal case from 1996, which is one of 13 where, at least in a civil case, punitive 8 the parar$gm cases on the proffering of punitive 9 damages are warranted, Your Honor. 9 damage evidence, that states that 'there was 10 Thank you, Your Honor. 10 reasonable basis for recovery of punitive 11 THE COURT: Thank you both. I'm going to 11 damages' can be demonstrated by either a 12 grant the motion. In conformance with and 12 presentation of supporting evidence already in 13 following the Despain case, the Court indicates, 13 the record or by a proffer of the evidence to 14 in following the analysis of Judge Hugler - and, 14 COMO. 15 by the way, that analysis of Judge Hugler is 15 I find that a combination of the Answers 16 commented upon on a supportive basis by several 16 to Interrogatories - I will take into account. 17 appellate courts - and in the Despain case under 17 though, give little weight to the Fifth 18 headnote 7 and 8 on Page 642 it states: 'a 18 Amendment arguments of Plaintiffs - but 19 'proffer according to traditional notions of 19 certainly the Answers to Interrogatories on 20 the term, connotes merely an 'offers of evidence 20 behalf of both of these Individual Plaintiffs in 21 and neither the term standing alone nor the 21 this Court's view, and particularly in 22 statute itself calls for an adjudication of the 22 conjunction with the Coercion statute relative 23 underlying veracity of that which is submitted, 23 to prostitution, 796.09, would form a reasonable 24 much less for countervailing evidentiary 24 basis to establish at least a claim for punitive 25 submissions.' 25 damages, recognizing that, again, the courts Toll Free: 800.211.3376 Facsimile: 954.331.4418 Suite 1300 ESQUIRE 515 East Las Olas Boulevard EFTA00722987  July 31, 2009 Proceedings 29 31 1 have made clear that the proffer and the burden 1 CERTIFICATE 2 on the moving party is much less than at summary 2 3 judgment or at trial, so I will allow the 3 STATE OF FLORIDA ) amendments to proceed and, therefore, we do have 4 COUNTY OF BROWARD ) 5 an amended complaint, so how much time wit you 6 6 need, Mr. Craton, to respond? 7 I, JENNIFER D. DiLORENZO, Shorthand 7 MR. CAUTION: I just wrote to Mr. Berger a Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did a 20 days I would like for both of therm if that's 9 stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and 9 agreeable with the Court. 10 that the transcript is a true and complete record of 10 THE COURT: Fine with me, as king as it's my stenographic notes. 11 11 fine with the Plaintiffs. 12 12 MR. BERGER: Yes, Your Honor. I drafted 13 Dated this 5th day of August, 2009. 13 an order and just showed it to Mr. Critton. It 14 la just says: 'Granted for reasons stated on the 15 15 record. Plaintiff may Me an amended complaint 16 16 to allege a count for battery' - which is also 17 17 part of ow motion, which was unopposed -'and 16 18 punitive damages. The defense shall have 20 19 JENNIFER D. DiLORENZO, 19 days to respond.' COURT REPORTER 20 THE COURT: I believe you already filed 20 21 the proposed amended complaint. 21 22 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, Your Honor. I filed it 22 23 with the motion. 23 24 MR. BERGER: Ill correct that. 24 25 THE COURT: You can indicate in there -- 25 30 1 MR. CRITTON: Deemed filed. 2 THE COURT: -- "the amended complaint 3 shall be deemed filed as of the date of this 4 order from today." MR. BERGER: We'll draft it out there and 6 present It to the bailiff. 7 THE COURT: Not a problem. Thank you very 8 much. Gentlemen, thank you for your arguments 9 and your submissions and have a good rest of the 10 week. 11 MR. CRITTON: It they get it typed I'll 12 take a copy. 13 (The hearing concluded at 9:05 a.m.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Toll

EFTA00317211.pdf

DataSet-10 Unknown 37 pages

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 1 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARR A/JOHNSON vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 DEFENDANT'S, CONSOLIDATED RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDERS DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), (DE 480) AND APRIL 1, 2010 (DE 513), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Consolidated Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Orders (DE 462), (DE 480) and (DE 513) pursuant to Rule 60, Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 4, Rule 4(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e). In support, Epstein states: L Introduction The Fifth Amendment serves as a guarantee against testimonial compulsion and provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o person...shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself" (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (1 1 th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right and extends not only to answers that would support a criminal conviction, but extends also to those answers which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence EFTA00317211 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 2 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 2 needed to prosecute the claimant for a crime. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). Information is protected by the privilege not only if it would support a criminal conviction, but also in those instances where "the responses would merely `provide a lead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate." &,.g United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cent denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980); Blau v. United States 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (E.D. PA. 2001). Add new case from my e-mail of yesterday: (Court in Englebrick v Worthington Industries Inc 670 F Supp2d 1048 (CD Cal, 2009) rejected motion to compel in helpful language: "A valid assertion of the privilege does not require an imminent criminal prosecution or investigation: 'The right to assert one's privilege against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of prosecution' cite omitted ...a possibility of prosecution exists where the witness has not received a grant of immunity, the statute of limitations has not run, double jeopardy does not apply, and there are no other concrete indications that criminal prosecution is barred. See also Belmonte v Lawson., 750 F. Supp. 735, 739 (ED. Va. 1990X"Courts should avoid engaging in crystal ball forecasts about what a prosecutor may or may not do...). Significantly, these cases have been consolidated for discovery. Therefore, consistent rulings must apply. In making those rulings, this Court must continue to recognize that the allegations in the related cases cannot be forgotten. (&g., sag DE 242, 293). Production of information in one case could provide a link in the chain of evidence used to prosecute Epstein for a crime or provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence in another case and in another jurisdiction. M. and infra. EFTA00317212 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 3 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 3 Moreover, in addition to the testimonial privilege discussed herein, the Fifth Amendment includes an act of production which encompasses circumstances highly relevant to certain of the discovery requests at issue where the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request has a compelled testimonial aspect in that it would constitute an implied admission as to the defendant's possession or control of the requested documents, as to their authenticity, and as to the defendant's selection of them as meeting the requests for production. ate United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the existence or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production would "implicitly authenticate" the requested documents, the act of producing responsive documents is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000Xthe "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of prosecution and also covers those circumstances where the disclosures would not be directly incriminating, but could provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence). In addition, several of the requests outlined below implicate Federal Rules of Evidence 408, 410 and 502, and the confidentiality protections intrinsic to federal tax returns that would be unavailable under 26 U.S.C. 6103 even if a subpoena is served upon the IRS. Furthermore, H. Procedural Background Epstein filed his Motions for Reconsideration or, Alternatively, Rule 4 Appeal, at DE 477 and 488. However, this court entered an order (DE 513) allowing for Consolidated Rule 4 Appeals relative to the above docket entries. EFTA00317213 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 4 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 4 (a) Jane Doe Plaintiff, Jane Doe's Motion to Compel is filed at DE (194). Defendant's Response in Opposition is filed at DE (339), and the arguments set forth therein are incorporated herein by reference as if completely set forth herein as each apply to request numbers 10, 12 and 13. (b) Jane Does 2-8 Plaintiffs, Jane Doe 2-8s' Motion to Compel is filed at DE (333). Defendant's Response in Opposition is filed at DE (390) and the arguments set forth therein are incorporated herein by reference as if completely set forth herein as each apply to request number 1 of Plaintiff's First request to produce Net Worth Discovery. The Request for Production and the responses thereto arc attached as Composite Exhibits "A" and "B". III. The Requests For Production, Argument And Memorandum Of Law a. Jane Doe - Requests Numbers 7, 9 and 10 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. 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. 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 State Attorney's office or any agents thereof). Response to Request Numbers 7, 9 and 10: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections to the production request as well as his U.S. constitutional privileges. I intend to produce all relevant documents 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. EFTA00317214 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 5 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 5 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. Further, the request may include information subject to work product or an attorney-client privilege. It appears there is now a direct conflict with what Jane Doe requests (m Lg., DE 354, p. 3). In short, Plaintiff is fast and loose in her argument regarding what she seeks (i.e., she states in no uncertain terms (DE 354, p.3) that she seeks information that the Federal government gave to Epstein. However, in her Reply to the Response in Opposition, she now seeks everything that the government gave to Epstein's lawyers and what his lawyers gave to the Federal government (i.e., the full breadth of the requests). The far broader ambit of the requests implicates whether the Plaintiff is seeking just the communications provided by USAO to Epstein's counsel or all Epstein's counsel's communications with, g., the USAO, the State Attorneys' Office or any other local, state or Federal law enforcement. If Jane Doe seeks "all" communications, it deeply implicates the work product of Epstein's lawyers. If Plaintiff seeks just the communication provided by the USAO or the State Attorney, it deeply implicates the work product of the USAO and the State Attorney negotiating and communicating with Epstein's counsel which include, but are not limited to, information that resulted in a plea and information that did NOT result in a plea and information that may have resulted in the entering of the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA"). Either way, the requests deeply implicate the protections and policies of FRE 408, 410 and 502 as more fully set forth infra. Before this limitation was made by Plaintiff, Epstein argued in his response in opposition (DE 339, p.7-8) that these requests are the same type requests the court found subject to the Fifth Amendment. With the limitation made by Plaintiff and her counsel in the Reply, the court ruled "(t)hat the earlier requests referenced by Epstein were significantly broader than the narrow EFTA00317215 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 6 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 6 requests at issue here, including for example, a request for all documents 'relating to' the federal non—prosecution agreement, and all documents 'relating to' either the federal or state criminal investigations. These requests would have required Epstein to pick and choose which documents were responsive and in this way force Epstein to use to effectively make 'use of the content his mind,' an action that would undeniably implicate the Fifth Amendment." (DE 462, p.9) Clearly the instant requests are exactly the same type of broad requests this court has already ruled upon. Had the Plaintiff not limited the scope of the requests in her Reply (DE 354, p.3), the court would not have labeled these requests as "narrow" because these requests now seek all information related to the federal non—prosecution agreement and all documents relating to either the federal or state criminal investigations, which clearly require Epstein to effectively make use of the content his mind to determine what is and what is not responsive to these broad requests. As a result of the limitation made by Plaintiff in her Reply (DE 354) and as a result of this court's Order (DE 462), Epstein responded - "[a]s to Request Number 7, Epstein and his attorneys do not have any "discovery information" provided to them by the federal government and [a]s to Request Number 9, Epstein has not been given any evidentiary materials or evidentiary documents by the federal government." (DE 477) Certainly, these responses were not intended to "gild the lily" as Plaintiff contends nor are they misleading. Despite what the interrogatory sought, Plaintff chose to limit same in her Reply to only what the Federal Government gave Epstein, and that is exactly how the Magistrate interpreted same. The responses were made based upon Plaintiff's limitation in what she sought from Epstein and because this court entered an Order based upon that limitation. Had the limitation not been made, neither this court nor Epstein would have been misled down this primrose path. EFTA00317216 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 7 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 7 Nonetheless, Plaintiff now seeks to obtain the full breadth of information sought under request numbers 7, 9 and 10. However, that argument shall meet a short death in that Plaintiff herself limited the scope of the requests in her Reply and failed to timely file her own Rule 4 Appeal after the court entered its order at DE 462, which adopted Plaintiff `s limited scope of the requests (which Plaintiff now wishes to change). See S.D. Fla., Rule 4(a)(1), Mag. J. 2009. If the court made a mistake in adopting the limited scope of the requests (which it did not), Plaintiff should have timely appealed, which she did not. As such, Plaintiff's requested relief in this regard should be denied. Next, the Magistrate's order as to Request No.: 10 must be reversed because it contravenes critical public policy of encouraging resolution of criminal prosecutions without trial and the concomitant understanding that defendants will be considerably more likely to engage in full and frank discussions with the government if they need not fear that statements they or their counsel make to government prosecutors will be used against them to their detriment. The policies behind FRE 408, 410 and 502 provide this court with a basis for sustaining Epstein's objections to Request No.: 10. For instance, the critical importance of plea bargaining to the criminal justice system has long been recognized. "[W]hatever might be the situation in an ideal world, the fact is that the guilty plea and the often concomitant plea bargain are important components of this country's criminal justice system. Properly administered, they can benefit all concerned." Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 361-62 (1978), quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 71 (1977). To encourage defendants to participate in the plea negotiation process, rules have developed to prohibit admission into evidence against the defendant of any and all statements he or his counsel acting on his behalf makes to government prosecutors during the plea negotiation process. This confidentiality protection is embodied in both Fed, R. Evid. 410 and Fed. R. Critn. EFTA00317217 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 8 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 8 P. 11(f). While these rules by their express terms refer only to admissibility of evidence, the purposes and policies underlying these rules is instructive in this context, in which a civil plaintiff seeks discovery of documents falling within the scope of these two rules. Rule 410 was created to promote active plea negotiations and plea bargains, which our Supreme Court has acknowledged are "important components of this country's criminal justice system.". . . Our Court of Appeals has held that "in order for plea bargaining to work effectively and fairly, a defendant must be free to negotiate without fear that this statements will later be used against him.". . . Indeed, absent the protection of Rule 410, "the possibility of self-incrimination would discourage defendants from being completely candid and open during plea negotiations." S.E.C. v. Johnson, 534 F.Supp.2d 63, 66-67 (D.D.C. 2008), quoting United States v. Davis, 617 F.2d 677, 683 (D.C.Cir. 1980). See, United States v. MezzanattQ, 513 U.S. 196, 205, 207 (1995)(purpose of the rules is to encourage plea bargaining, and rules "creat[e], in effect, a privilege of the defendant," quoting 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence 1410[05] at 410-43 (1994)); United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 116 (2d Cir. 2005X"The underlying purpose of Rule 410 is to promote plea negotiations by permitting defendants to talk to prosecutors without sacrificing their ability to defend themselves if no disposition agreement is reached"); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, Advisory Committee Notes, 1979 Amendment ("the purpose of Fed. R. Ev. 410 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(eX6) [now Rule 11(f)] is to promote the unrestrained candor which produces effective plea discussions")) Additional illustration of the high degree of confidentially accorded settlement negotiations is found in Fed. R. Evid. 408, which precludes the introduction into evidence 2 FRE 410(4) is particularly directed to communications in matters which, like Epstein's, did not result in a plea of guilty to any federal charge. Fla. Stat. §90.410 provides parallel protections in slate criminal matters. Epstein pled guilty to Fla. Stat. 796.07(2)(1), Unlawful to Solicit, Induce, Entice, or Procure Another to Commit Prostitution, Lewdness or Assignation, and Fla. Stat. 796.03, Procuring Person Under Age of 18 For Prostitution. Therefore, in the event this court orders production of said correspondence, then it must first hold an in camera inspection to determine what, if any, documents aro related to the foregoing pleas and what documents are not. Along those same lines, an in camera inspection must be had in an effort to redact any information that may violate third-party privacy rights or information that would implicate Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. infra. EFTA00317218 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 9 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 9 communications made during settlement negotiations. The purposes underlying Rule 408 are essentially the same as those underlying Fed. R. Crim, P. 11(f) and 410: "to encourage non- litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). ee ug. Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlying Rule 408 . . . is the promotion of the public policy favoring the compromise and settlement of disputes that would otherwise be discouraged with the admission of such evidence"); Bankcard America, Inc. v. Universal Bancard Systems. Inc., 203 F.3d 477, 483 (7th Cir. 2000)("Because settlement talks might be chilled if such discussions could later be used as admissions of liability at trial, the rule's purpose is to encourage settlements"); In re A.H. Robins Co.. Inc., 197 B.R. 568, 572 (E.D.Va. 1994)("Rule 408 aims to foster settlement discussions in an individual lawsuit, and therefore insulates the particular parties to a settlement discussion from possible adverse consequences of their frank and open statements"). So crucial is this policy of confidentiality to the functioning of our federal court system that some courts have held that communications falling within the parameters of Rule 408 are covered by a settlement privilege which insulates them not just from admission into evidence but from discovery as well. aLL, tl,g Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Stumlva Inc., 332 F.3d 976, 979-983 (6th Cir. 2003). Given the powerful and long-standing policy of according confidentiality to settlement negotiations in both the civil and criminal context, civil plaintiffs should, at a minimum, be required to demonstrate real and concrete need for the material. They should not be permitted to rummage through such sensitive documents based on nothing more than a vague and contentless statement that the materials are "likely to lead to the discovery of other admissible evidence." Motion to Compel at 12 n.3, which is all that plaintiff offers as to Request No. 10. This is EFTA00317219 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 10 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 10 particularly so given the reality that parties often take positions or offer potential compromise solutions during plea negotiations which are inconsistent with the litigation strategy they will pursue if the case goes to trial. As one court has explained in the civil context: There exists a strong public interest in favor of secrecy of matters discussed by parties during settlement negotiations. . . . The ability to negotiate and settle a case without trial fosters a more efficient, more cost-effective, and significantly less burdened judicial system. . . . Parties must be able to abandon their adversarial tendencies to some degree. They must be able to make hypothetical concessions, offer creative quid pro quos, and generally make statements that would otherwise belie their litigation efforts. Goodyear Tire, 332 F.3d at 980. The same is no less true in the plea negotiation context particularly where a central component of the discussions and negotiations between counsel for Epstein and counsel for the USAO was to reach an agreement on conditions relating to 18 USC 2255 including certain waivers and other obligations of Epstein's NPA. The plaintiffs have contended that such provisions relating to 2255 are civil in nature, thus squarely implicating FRE 408 protections. The free availability in discovery to civil plaintiffs of communications made during the plea negotiation process has profound potential to chill frank and open communications during that process so crucial to the functioning of the criminal justice system in any criminal case which has potential to become a civil or regulatory matter as well. Such defendants will be loath to be fully forthcoming during plea discussions or communications and indeed, if the potential civil or regulatory consequences are sufficiently severe, may decline to enter into plea negotiations at all, if they must fear that their communications will be made available to civil plaintiffs in discovery, thus entirely defeating both the purpose and spirit of Rules 410 and 11(f). In addition, the communications made during the plea negotiation process contain fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particularly given the strong public policy in favor of confidentiality of plea/settlement EFTA00317220 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 11 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 11 negotiations, the disclosure of such information should be treated as falling within the selective waiver provisions of Fed. R. Evid. 502 and not be treated as an open-ended waiver of the attorney-client and work product privileges, and, if the discovery order is upheld as to request 10 a request for an order pursuant to FRE 502(d) mandating that the communications that led to the execution of a Non-Prosecution Agreement and communications regarding its implementation should be, to the extent they involve fact or opinion work product, not disclosed to third parties in civil litigation outside the criminal proceedings to which they relate. FRE 502(D) provides: ". . . a Federal court may order that the privilege or protection is not waived by disclosure connected with the litigation pending before the court - -in which event disclosure is also not a waiver in any other Federal or State proceeding." The correspondence in question contained what would constitute paradigm opinion work product with the single caveat that the opinions of each counsel, Epstein's and the United States Attorney's were exchanged with each other pursuant to the overall expectation that they were safeguarded from disclosure by the policies of confidentiality that protect communications during settlement and plea negotiations. The requested communications include the views of Epstein's counsel in the criminal case regarding why a federal prosecution was inappropriate, why the federal statutes did not fit the alleged offense conduct, why certain of the alleged victims were not credible. It also includes Epstein's counsel's views on the limits and inapplicability of certain elements of 18 U.S.C. §2255, one of the principal causes of action in the Jane Doe cases. This opinion work-product should not be disclosed when it was incorporated into heartland plea negotiations that are accorded protection under the federal rules of evidence. It is the disclosure of such legal opinions — and not just their admissibility — that should be protected from a civil EFTA00317221 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 12 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 12 discovery request that lacked any statement as to why this information was even necessary to the fair litigation of the civil cases. Concomitantly, to the extent that the request is now limited to communications from the Government to Epstein, see DE 54, pgs 3 and 8, the narrowed request implicates the same concerns for the opinions, the work product, and the expectation of privacy of the United States Attorney or Assistant United States Attorney who authored the many letters received by counsel for Epstein. As such, to the extent that the Court is considering affirming any part of the Magistrate-Judge's opinion allowing request 10 that would result in the required disclosure of communications from the Government counsel to Epstein, that notice be provided to the United States Attorney so they may intervene to protect their opinion work product, assert their rights to confidentiality under FRE 408 and 410, and assert where appropriate their interests in grand jury secrecy and in the privacy rights of their witness who in at least one document are identified. The defendant requests that if the Court were considering allowing the disclosure of any portion of the communications sent by Epstein to the Government which are within the original request for production but apparently not plaintiffs latest filing, DE 354, pg 3, the Court first consider permitting the defendant to provide a privilege log that would identify specific portions of the correspondence that contains the opinion work product of counsel for Epstein and permitting leave to seek an order under FRE 502(d) that would protect such communications from disclosure to third parties such as requested in this matter. If the USAO cannot be compelled to release its investigation(s) and related work-product directly due to the protections of Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6, Epstein cannot be compelled to disclose same in violation of his constitutional rights? He cannot Rules 408, and 410 all counsel strongly against the discoverability of such documents. The court is requested to reverse the EFTA00317222 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 13 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 13 Magistrate-Judge's order as to paragraph 10. Alternatively, the Court is requested to permit a privilege log that would be filed by Epstein's counsel — and if they so desire the Government — particularizing the prejudice to their work product and to the values otherwise protected by FRE 408 and 410 on a document by document basis. Epstein also continues to maintain that the requested correspondence is protected under the Fifth Amendment, as it could furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him for a crime or provide the federal government with information that provides a lead or clue to evidence having a tendency to incriminate Epstein. infra; Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d at 1239; Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. at 159; and SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d at 494. As this court has recognized, the threat of criminal prosecution is real and present as Epstein remains under the scrutiny of the USAO, which is explained and/or acknowledged in the Court's Orders (DE 242, p.4 and 462, p.2). As this Court knows, Epstein entered into a Non- Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the USAO for the Federal Southern District of Florida . However, the NPA does not provide Epstein with any protection from criminal investigation or prosecution other than in the Southern District of Florida. As the court has acknowledged in its orders (e.g., DE 462), complaints in these related matters allege that Epstein both resided in and allegedly engaged in illegal sexual conduct in districts outside the Southern District of Florida, and that he allegedly lured economically disadvantaged girls to homes other than in Palm Beach. Thus, the fact that there exists a NPA does not mean that Epstein is free from a reasonable fear of future criminal prosecution. In fact, this court acknowledged that "[t]he danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in this case is substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary as required." (DE 242, p. 10). EFTA00317223 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 14 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 14 As such, in the event Epstein is required to produce information provided to him by the federal government — or provided by Epstein to the Government - that information could provide a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute Epstein of a crime outside the protections of the NPA. Given the nature of the allegations, to wit, a scheme and plan of sexual misconduct, this court should find it entirely reasonable for Epstein to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege as to request Number 10, especially since it is broad enough to encompass information that could violate Epstein's Fifth Amendment Privileges. Hubbell, supra. In responding to the request, Epstein would be compelled admit that such documents exist, admit that the documents were in his possession or control, and further admit that the documents produced were authentic. In other words, the very act of production of the category of documents requested would implicitly communicate "statements of fact." as well as authenticate the letters as genuine examples of communications that include disclosures made by Epstein's attorney i.e., his agent on his behalf, Hubbell, supra; Hama, supra. The defendant requests that the Court order that the documents in question are protected by FRE 408 and 410, that if not they should be subject to a "selective waiver" order under FRE 502(d) given their inclusion of attorney opinion and fact work product that was only disclosed in reasonable expectation they would be solely used to further plea and settlement discussions. o the extent this court orders production of any of the requested materials, the information should first be produced in camera to determine what portions of the materials should be redacted to protect the attorneys' mental impressions and to assist the Court in making further determinations as to what information , should be protected by Federal Rules 408, 410, and 502. See supra. Again, as set forth in the Reply attached hereto as Exhibit "B", the USAO and the EFTA00317224 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 15 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 15 Palm Beach State Attorneys' Office should be put on notice that their underlying files are being requested by and through backdoor methods. (b) Plaintiffs' Attorneys Already Have Much Of The Information They Seek Pursuant To This Improver Motion Practice And Have No Demonstrable Need For More Several depositions have occurred over the last 4 weeks wherein it appears Mr. Edwards already has the information he seeks responsive to these requests, which is likely the reason Mr. Edwards has not filed any affidavits supporting the specious arguments set forth in Plaintiff's Motions. As such, there is no substance or factual representations made by Plaintiff to support her argument. Plaintiff is wasting attorney time and judicial resources in her effort to obtain what she already has in her possession. For example, at a deposition of Mr. Epstein on February 17, 2010, the following exchange occurred: Mr. Edwards: The 87-page Palm Beach Police Department incident report where there are numerous underage females describing their interaction with Mr. Epstein at his house. I'm specifically reading from page 41 related to A.H., who was one of the victims he pled guilty to. Mr. Pike: Is that the same document that you're seeking production of, in this same exact case? Mr. Edwards: I don't know what you're talking about. This is something from the state attorneys' file. It is clear from Mr. Edwards's response above (attached as Exhibit "C") that he has the information from the Palm Beach Police Department and the information from the State Attorneys' file. This begs the question — if plaintiff already has the information she seeks, why is Plaintiff wasting valuable attorney time and judicial resources to obtain what is already in hand? Sic also Exhibits "D-1" and "D-2" and "E," a copy of the 89-page incident report marked as an Exhibit by Plaintiff's counsel at Detective Recarey's deposition as well as certain message pads Plaintiff claims was pulled from the residence at 358 Brillo Way. EFTA00317225 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 16 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 16 Moreover, at the deposition of AR on March 15, 2010, the following exchange occurred: Mr. Edwards: Well, at some point in time what's been marked as defense Exhibit "1", you received a grand jury investigation target letter, correct? sit Mr. Edwards: There's another message from 9/11/05 saying "I got a car for," and then the name is blotted out. The State Attorneys' Office blotted the names of minors out sometimes in their file.... sit Once again, Mr. Edwards's response above (attached as Exhibit "F") establishes that he has the information from both the Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorneys' file. In fact, as argued infra, Mr. Edwards has certain information from the Palm Beach Police Department, which resulted from various alleged "trash pulls" from a residence on Palm Beach (e.g., certain notepads). Finally, at the deposition of Detective Recarey of the Palm Beach Police Department, on March 19, 2010, the following exchange occurred: Mr. Kuvin: Okay. And what were the dates of the surveillance? Witness: [Referencing his Report] It appears she met with members of the B.S.F. unit, Burglary Strike Force.... sss Mr. Kuvin: [Referencing the Report] If we go down to page 40 in your report, first let me back up... . Mr. Kuvin: Okay. So the chain of custody which we have marked as Exhibit 5 shows that all the evidence you had in this case was given to the FBI. . .. aeg Exhibit "G". The undersigned was at Detective Recarey's deposition. Mr. Kuvin and Mr. Edwards had copies of various reports and also had copies of various message pads claimed to be "pulled" from Epstein's trash by the Palm Beach Police Department. See infra. It is clear from the EFTA00317226 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 17 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 17 deposition that opposing counsel has the information from the Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorneys' file. also, /OA for additional argument. (i) Work-Product - Palm Beach State Attorneys' File Next, as to any information obtained from the State Attorney at any phase (request numbers 801), the State Attorney has not provided anything to Epstein or his attorneys. While the State Attorneys' file was made available for inspection, Jack Goldberger, Epstein's criminal lawyer, went over to the State Attorneys' Office and hand selected information from the file for copying, including certain witness interviews. Egg Exhibit "H" Affidavit of Jack Goldberger. Accordingly, the information hand selected by Mr. Goldberger falls under the work-product doctrine as production of same would reveal Mr. Goldberger's mental impressions, thought processes and strategy relative to the defense of Epstein. Smith v. Florida Power & Light Company 632 Sold 696, 698 (Fla. 3 rd DCA 1994Xeven if individual documents are not work- product, "the selection process itself represents defense counsel's mental impressions and legal opinions as to how the evidence in the documents relates to the issues and the defenses in the litigation"). W. The information simply falls under the "highly protected category of opinion work-product." Id; see also Fla.R.Civ.Pro. 1.280. Also, Counsel for Jane Does 2-8 in the Federal companion cases apparently obtained a copy of the file retained by the Palm Beach State Attorneys' Office. It is reasonably believed that all Plaintiffs' attorneys in this action have extensive materials from the State Attorney and the Palm Beach Police Department pursuant to various public records requests. Certainly, Mr. EFTA00317227 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 18 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 18 Edwards is able make such public records requests or can subpoena the requested information, neither of which would implicate the work product privilege as outlined above. Here, the standard is a showing of a need to obtain the information, and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship. Metric Engineering, Inc. v. Small, 861 So. 2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)(To show `need,' a party must present testimony or evidence demonstrating the material requested is critical to the theory of the requestor's case, or to some significant aspect of the case); Ashemimry v. Ba Nafa, 847 So.2d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In addition, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(3), does allow discovery of fact work product where the requesting party can show need and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means without undue hardship. Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. Figueroa, 821 So.2d 1233. 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(the showing of need and undue hardship necessary to overcome the work product immunity must include specific explanations and reasons). Again, Mr. Edwards fails to submit any affidavit or any other document meeting the above criteria. Additionally, this court should consider placing the Palm Beach State Attorney and the USAO on Notice that their investigative files are being requested. Since Plaintiff seeks information given by federal government and the state attorney to Epstein, including correspondence, Epstein reincorporates the arguments set out in his initial Rule 4 Appeal as that information is within the penumbra of the protections of Federal Rules of Evidence 408 and 410. Moreover, despite Plaintiffs contention, Federal Rule of Evidence 410 is applicable because negotiations did not end with a federal plea. Furthermore, Federal Rule of Evidence 408 is applicable given that 18 U.S.C. 2255 is quasi-civil remedy. Clearly, the information sought by Plaintiff has no evidentiary value - given that Plaintiffs have the raw materials and police reports and affidavits resulting from state investigation. Accordingly, there is a chance that the Palm EFTA00317228 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 19 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 19 Beach State Attorney and the USAO may not want to disclose their files for one reason or another. (ii) Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order The Magistrate's Order does not consider the privacy rights of other alleged victims. As this Court knows, attached to the NPA is a list which delineates alleged victims. Once the NPA was made public, Judge Colbath, with the agreement of the Palm Beach Post, Brad Edwards, Esq. and Spencer Kuvin, Esq. agreed that the "list" would remain private. As such, Request for Production Numbers 7, 9 and 10 seeks information that may violate others third-party privacy rights in that certain names may be mentioned in correspondence, including those on the "list." As noted in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, at fn. 10 (1972): In 5tanley, 394 U.S., at 564, 89 S.Ct, at 1247, the Court stated:`(A)lso fundamental is the right to be free, except in very limited circumstances, from unwanted governmental intrusions into one's privacy." The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man.' [Citations omitted]. The fundamental right of privacy is not only guaranteed under by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, but also under the Constitution of the State of Florida, Art. I, Sect. 23. As summarized by the Florida Supreme Court in Shalom/1 v. State 553 So.2d 148, 150-51 (Fla. 1989): The right of privacy, assured to Florida's citizens, demands that individuals be free from uninvited observation of or interference in those aspects of their lives which fall within the ambit of this zone of privacy unless the intrusion is warranted by the necessity of a compelling state interest. In an opinion which predated the adoption of section 23, the First District aptly characterized the nature of this right. EFTA00317229 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 20 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 20 A fundamental aspect of personhood's integrity is the power to control what we shall reveal about our intimate selves, to whom, and for what purpose. Bryon. Hatless. Schaffer. Reid & Assocs.. Inc. v. State ex rel. Schellenberg. 360 So.2d 83, 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), quashed and remanded on other grounds, 379 So.2d 633 (Fla.1980). Because this power is exercised in varying degrees by differing individuals, the parameters of an individual's privacy can be dictated only by that individual, The central concern is the inviolability of one's own thought, person, and personal action. The inviolability of that right assures its preeminence over "majoritarian sentiment" and thus cannot be universally defined by consensus. (Es pbasis added). Clearly, the nature of the question would require Epstein to produce information that may identify third parties (including alleged victims), which would necessarily thwart such individuals' rights to assert their constitutional right of privacy as guaranteed under the United States and Florida Constitutions. &2e generally Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra at 454-455 (the right encompasses privacy in ones sexual matters and is not limited to the marital relationship). The Magistrate's Order did not address this issue. Federal law provides crime victims with rights similar to those afforded by the Florida constitution which includes, but is not limited to, "the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any pubic court. . .proceeding involving the crime. . . ," "the right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding. . . ," and "the right to be heard." 15 Fla. Jur.2d Crim.Proc. §1839; Fla. Stat. 960.0021. Based upon the foregoing, any alleged victim that may be identified in any of the requested information must first be notified, which means that this court must, at the very least, conduct an in camera inspection of any and all information to determine which alleged victim must be placed on notice that their identity may be revealed or redact their names in camera. Ste gt,%2 Fla. Stat. §794.03, §794.024 and §794.026. The right to privacy encompasses at least two different kinds of interests, the individual interests of disclosing EFTA00317230 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 21 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 21 personal matters and the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions. Favalora v. Sideway, 966 So.2d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Accordingly, based on the facts and circumstances of this case, and under applicable law, Defendant's assertion of the protections afforded under the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution are required to be upheld. In addition, this Court must address t