DataSet-10
Unknown
37 pages
1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
2 WEST PALM BEACH
3
4
S
6
7
8 IN RE: OPERATION LEAP YEAR
9
10 /
11
Grand Jury #07-103 (TUES-WPB)
12 west Palm Beach, Florida
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
13
14
15 TESTIMONY
16 OF
17
18
19
20
21 APPEARANCE:
22 SISTANT S. ATTORNEY
, FOREPER N
23 URT REPORTER
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
Exhibit 27
EFTA00224040
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,
State of Florida, on the 15th day of May, 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. •
•
15 Q Good morning, Special Agent. Could you state
16 and spell your name for the record.
17 A Special Agent
18
19 Q And with whom do you work?
20 A The FBI here in West Palm Beach.
21 Q And are you here today on the continuing
22 investigation known as operation Leap Year?
23 A Yes, I am.
24 Q And you are one of the case agents on this
25 investigation, correct?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (
EFTA00224041
3
1 A Yes, I am.
2 Q The last time you were here we were discussing
3 the evidence supporting various overt acts and charges
4 related to Jane Does number 1 and 2?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Today we are going to start with Jane Doe
7 number 3. Can you tell the Grand Jury who that is and
8 summarize briefly your previous testimony about her.
9 A Jane Doe number 3 is and she first
10 started, we have first phone contact with
11 starting in December of 2004, would have been 16
12 or 17 at that time, let me do the math real quick, she
13 would have been 16 -- sorry, 1 am sorry, she would have
14 been at that time 17, let's get it right, so she started
15 phone contact, started calling her in
16 September of 2004.
17 From testimony we know that went there
18 earlier, much earlier. which was Jane Doe
19 number 4 you will hear about next, they were good
20 friends and they both went in the spring of '04, prior
21 to 17th birthday, so did start giving
22 Mr. Epstein massages when she was 16, she performed a
23 few massages for Mr. Epstein and then took kind of a
24 little bit of a break.
25 The sexual activity that occurred with
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (
EFTA00224042
4
1 Mr. Epstein when was under the age of 18
2 included digital penetration, the use of a vibrator on
3 grabbing and fondling of her breasts and her
4 buttock, she was given gifts by Mr. Epstein, she was
5 given a vibrator, she was given Victoria secret
6 underwear, she was also given a car that Mr. Epstein
7 rented for her for a number of months, she was paid $200
8 by Mr. Epstein and was the one that primarily
9 called to set up appointments and as you can see
10 that began in December of '04.
11 was also one of Mr. Epstein's
12 favorites, according to several of the other girls.
13 Q Just so the Grand Jury has an idea, how does
14 that translate into the number of phone calls between
15 and that you were able to calculate?
16 A called her, I guess calls between
17 the two of them ranged around 125 phone calls from
18 December 6th, 2004 until October, 2005.
19 Q And just briefly can you remind the Grand Jury
20 did ever tell Mr. Epstein her age?
21 A No, they did not ever discuss, she did not
22 tell him how old she was, but she did tell him where she
23 planned on going to school and that she was in soccer.
24 She stated that when it came to her age that
25 Mr. Epstein didn't care. As I mentioned earlier,
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224043
5
1 were very good friends and would talk
2 about and Mr. Epstein would ask questions about
3 was providing massages and as we will
4 talk about when we talk about Jane Doe number 4, which
5 is she told Mr. Epstein that she was a junior in
6 high school and that and her were in the same
7 classes together and that they were very good friends
8 and told us that at one point had come to
9 her because she had slipped about prom and she was
10 worried because Epstein was supposed to think she was 18
11 and she had talked about the prom and said she
12 never heard anything else about it and they never
13 brought it up.
14 Q Because, according to Mr. Epstein
15 didn't care really how old the girls were?
16 A Exactly.
17 Q And she never mentioned he asked her for her
18 age or asked for any form of identification to show
19 whether she was or was not over 18?
20 A No.
21 Q Now, if you could turn to the proposed
22 indictment and if I could ask you to look at overt act
23 number 59.
24 A we had a little knock at the door. Do you
25 want me to get it?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224044
6
1 Q Yes.
2 (Thereupon, there was a brief pause.)
3 A I will let you see a picture of Jane Doe
4 number 4, who we were talking about earlier, and
5 this is is there anyplace you want to put it
6 right down here in front?
7 Q And just so the record is clear, those are the
8 photographs that we showed to the Grand Jury last week?
9 A Yes, it is.
10 Q so if you could turn to overt act number 59
11 which appears on page 12, and if you could explain to
12 the Grand Jury the evidence we have related to that
13 phone call or phone calls on December 6th, 2004.
14 A On December 6th, 2004 a review of the phone
15 records indicate that there was telephonic phone contact
16 between the numbers belonging to and
17 as well as we have evidence with
18 Vanessa's statements of the phone calls being made to
19 her by .
20 Q And overt act number 60?
21 A A review of the phone records indicate
22 telephonic contact between the numbers belonging to
23 and on December 12, 2004.
24 Q And overt act number 64?
25 A A review of the phone records indicate
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224045
7
1 telephonic contact between numbers belonging to
2 and on December 14th, 2004.
3 Q And just so that it is clear to the Grand
4 Jury, when the overt acts says that defendant
5 made one or more telephone calls, that means that the
6 call is originating from s phone, is that
7 correct?
8 A Yes, it does.
9 Q And if you could turn to overt act number 71.
10 A on December 20th a review of the phone records
11 indicate that there was telephonic contact between
12 and
13 And overt act number 79?
14 A on January 6th, 2005 a review of phone records
15 indicate there was telephone contact between numbers
16 belonging to and
17 Q And number 83?
18 A On January 14th, 2005 a review of the phone
19 records indicate telephonic contact between numbers
20 belonging to and
21 Q And with respect to the other overt acts
22 Illated to the phone calls which would be 94, 100, 102,
23 104, 112, 118, 125, 129 and 132 is the evidence the
24 same?
25 A Yes, on or about each of those dates a review
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224046
8
1 of the phone records indicated telephonic contact
2 between the numbers belonging to and
3 as well as statements.
4 Q Now, if 1 could direct your attention to Count
5 number 7 which appears on page 26 of the draft
6 indictment, that is a charge of indictment of a minor
7 during the period of December 6th, 2004 through June 2nd
8 of 2005, could you summarize for the Grand Jury the
9 evidence related to that count.
10 A On or about these dates the facility of
11 interstate commerce, the telephone, specifically ■
12 and were utilized to set up
13 appointments, massage appointments for Epstein.
14 During the massages and on more than one
15 occasion Epstein digitally penetrated he
16 used a massager directly on her vagina and Epstein
17 directed to straddle him while he masturbated
18 and rubbed his penis between her legs, he would
19 masturbate, he would reach through her legs as she was
20 straddling him, there was no penetration of his penis in
21 her vagina, though.
22 He touched breasts, he would
23 masturbate. He paid on multiple occasions S200.
24 Both and Jeffrey Epstein have escorted
25 upstairs for these massages and Mr. Epstein gave
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224047
9
1 a vibrator, Victoria Secret bra and panty sets
2 and he also rented her a car for several months.
3 Q And just so that it is clear, you mentioned he
4 paid her on several occasions, he paid her every time
5 she performed these lewd acts, correct?
6 A Yes, $200.
7 Q And is listed as a defendant with
8 respect to Jane Doe number 3 as well, and can you
9 explain to the Grand Jury a little bit more about who
10 is and why she is charged in this count?
11 A is one of Mr. Epstein's personal
12 assistants as well and she made appointments for him for
13 these massages.
14 we have contact between phone
15 and phone, she contacted approximately
16 25 times.
17 Q And that's why she is also charged with
18 someone who is either an aider or abetter or a
19 coconspirator with respect to this?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Okay. If I could direct your attention to
22 Count number 32 which appears on page 30, Count number
23 32.
24 A I got 32.
25 Q What is the evidence related to?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224048
10
1 A I am sorry, I didn't hear you ask me the
2 question, I thought you said refer to it.
3 The evidence is we have flight records that
4 indicate on December 13th, 2004 Epstein traveled to Palm
5 Beach County on the Gulfstream, there was telephonic
6 contact between and the day
7 before or the day of travel, we also have the sexual
8 conduct between Jeffrey Epstein and as we
9 described earlier in Count 7.
10 Q And just to refresh the recollection of the
11 Grand Jury, the Gulfstream aircraft is the one owned by
12 Hyperion?
13 A Air, Inc.
14 Q And when you said that there was telephone
15 contact, you recall that in overt act number 60 that we
16 discussed phone calls on December 12th, correct?
17 A we did.
18 Q Okay. If I could direct you to Count number
19 35 and if you could tell the Grand Jury about the
20 evidence according to that count.
21 A Again, we have flight records that indicate
22 that on January 6th, 2005 Epstein traveled to Palm Beach
23 County on the Gulfstream again, there was telephonic
24 contact between and the day before,
25 the day of that travel, we also talked about the sexual
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224049
11
1 conduct between Jeffrey and between Epstein and
2
3 Q And can you tell us again what aircraft they
4 flew on on January 6th?
5 A That was the Gulfstream which was owned by
Hyperion Air, Inc.
7 Q Okay. If I could direct you to count 36 and
8 again if you could summarize that evidence.
9 A we have flight records that indicate that on
10 January 14th, 2005 Epstein, and traveled to
11 Palm Beach County on the Boeing 727 that Mr. Epstein
12 owns, there was telephonic contact between
13 and the day before, the day of that
14 travel, as well as we have the sexual conduct between
15 Jeffrey Epstein and as we described
16 earlier, and 1 will tell you that is --
17 Mr. Epstein's personal assistant, and is
18 we talked about just a few minutes ago,
19 mr. Epstein, another of Mr. Epstein's personal
20 assistants.
21 Q And if I could direct your attention to count
22 37 and ask you to summarize the evidence related to that
23 count.
24 A we have flight records that indicate that on
25 February 3rd, 2005 Mr. Epstein and traveled
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224050
12
1 to Palm Beach County on the Boeing 727, there was
2 telephonic contact between and
3 the day before or the day of travel and we have
4 the sexual conduct between Epstein and
5 Q And if I could direct your attention to Count
6 number 38.
7 A In Count number 38 we have flight records that
8 indicate on February 10th, 2005 Mr. Epstein,
9 and traveled to
10 Palm Beach County on the Gulfstream, there was telephone
11 contact between and the day
12 before or the day of travel, we also have the sexual
13 conduct between Mr. Epstein and
14 Q Now, I am sorry, on Count number 38, which
15 airline were they on?
16 A They were on the Gulfstream.
17 Q Can i ask you to double-check that? There is
18 an inconsistency between the chart and the indictment or
19 we can save that for a later date.
20 A It is right here.
21 Q I will mark that we need to check on Count
22 number 38.
23 A I have the flight manifest with me if you want
24 me to check, I don't know if you want me to do that now.
25 Q Yes, if you don't mind.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224051
13
1 (Thereupon, there was a brief pause.)
2 A In count 38, flight records indicate on
3 February 10th, 2005 that Mr. Epstein,
4 and were in fact on the
S Boeing 727.
6 Q So the draft indictment contains the correct
7 information?
8 A Yes, it does.
9 Q What company owns the Boeing 727?
10 A JEGE, Inc., Incorporated.
11 Q And if I could take you to Count number 39
12 A Evidence shows through flight records that on
13 February 21st, 2005 Epstein,
14 and traveled to Palm Beach County on
15 the Boeing 727, there was telephonic contact between
16 and the day before or the day
17 of travel , there was also the sexual conduct between
18 Epstein and
19 Q And if I could take you to count number 40,
20 please.
21 A we have flight records that indicate on
22 February 24th, 2005 Epstein,
23 traveled to Palm Beach County on the Boeing
24 727, there was telephonic contact between
25 and the day before, the day of travel, and
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224052
14
1 there was sexual conduct between Jeffrey Epstein and
2 as we described earlier in Count 7.
3 Q And if you could do Count 42.
4 A we have evidence that shows flight records,
5 that flight records indicate that on March 18th, 2005
6 Epstein traveled to Palm Beach County on the Boeing 727,
7 there was telephonic contact between and
8 the day of or the day before travel , we
9 have the sexual conduct between Mr. Epstein and
10 Q And just referring to that count,
11 is named, although she was not on the flight that day,
12 is that correct?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And you said that she made the telephone calls
15 with correct?
16 A Yes, and we also do have -- we have
17 interviewed Mr. Epstein's pilots and one of the pilots
18 indicated that was the one that arranged all of
19 Mr. Epstein's travel arrangements and so she is
20 responsible for making his arrangements to travel to
21 Palm Beach as well as call the girls for the
22 appointments.
23 Q If I could take you to Count number 43,
24 please.
25 A Flight records indicate that on March 31st,
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (
EFTA00224053
15
1 2005 Mr. Epstein traveled to Palm Beach County on the
2 Boeing 727, there was telephonic contact between
3 and the day before or the day of travel,
4 we also have the sexual conduct between Epstein as
5 described earlier in Count 7.
6 Q Again, in Count 44, what is the evidence
7 related to that?
8 A Flight records indicate that on April 8th,
9 2005 Epstein and traveled to Palm Beach
10 County on the Gulfstream and there was telephonic
11 contact between and on the
12 day before or the day of travel, we also have the sexual
13 conduct between Mr. Epstein and
14 Q And if you could go through 45, 46 and 47.
15 A Count 45 we have flight records that indicate
16 on April 27th, 2005 Epstein and traveled to
17 Palm Beach County on the Gulfstream, there is telephone
18 contact between and the day
19 before or the day of travel and we have the sexual
20 conduct between Jeffrey and
21 In Count 46 we have flight records that
22 indicate that on May 6th, 2005 Epstein, and
23 traveled to Palm Beach County on the
24 Gulfstream.
25 We have also telephonic contact between
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224054
16
1 and either the day before or the
2 day of travel and we have the sexual conduct between
3 Epstein and and in Count 47 on May 19th, 2005
4 we have flight records that indicate Epstein,
5 and traveled to Palm Beach County on
6 the Gulfstream and we have telephone contact between
7 and the day before or the day
8 of travel.
9 we also have the sexual conduct between
10 Epstein and as described in the earlier
11 count, Count 7.
12 Q Now, if I could direct your attention to count
13 number 51 which appears on page 33, that is the sex
14 trafficking of a minor involving Jane Doe number 3, and
15 could you briefly summarize that, the evidence related
16 to that.
17 A As we discussed earlier in Count 7, I told you
18 guys about the sexual conduct between Epstein and
19 the monies that were paid to by
20 Mr. Epstein, the phone activity we discussed between
21 and it began in December,
22 and we also have phone calls beginning in January from
23 to at that time was 17
24 years of age, and we also have statements from
25 and regarding Mr. Epstein's knowledge of their
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224055
17
1 ages.
2 Q And with respect to the affect on interstate
3 commerce related to that count we have both the
4 telephone calls, correct?
5 A Yes.
6 Q As well as Mr. Epstein actually traveling in
7 interstate commerce to engage in this activity, correct?
8 A Yes, we do.
9 Q is there anything else that you would like to
10 mention about Jane Doe number 3?
11 A Not at this time, no.
12 Q If I could direct you to Jane Doe number 4 and
13 if you could summarize for the Grand Jury the
14 information related to Jane Doe number 4's activities.
15 A Jane Doe number 4 is I think you
16 wanted their birth dates, her birth date is
17 she was 16 years old and attended Royal Palm Beach
18 High School.
19 we first have contact through phone calls from
20 to on April 25th, 2004 which
21 indicates and shows that was clearly 16 years of
22 age when she started going to Mr. Epstein's and
23 performing massages for Mr. Epstein.
24 our Jane Doe number 1, was the one
25 who recruited she basically told that she
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224056
18
1 could make $200, she needed to dress cute, he might try
2 to touch you, but if you feel uncomfortable just let him
3 know and he will stop, and the first massage that
4 did he repeatedly told and I mentioned this to
5 you in the last Grand Jury session, she was very shy and
6 he would repeatedly tell her not to be so shy, that she
7 didn't have to be so shy.
8 Epstein asked her to remove her clothing and
9 she told him no, and throughout the massage he would
10 repeatedly grab at her, he grabbed her butt, he did
11 masturbate through this first massage and pulled her
12 clothes, she would pull away and she was paid $200 for
13 that.
14 upon leaving the first massage Mr. Epstein
15 told that if was willing to do more she
16 would get paid more. He also informed I that if she
17 would bring her pretty friends he would also pay her for
18 bringing her pretty friends. He told that
19 would get her phone number.
20 says that she performed three to four
21 massages for Mr. Epstein. we have with
22 approximately a hundred phone calls between
23 and
24 when I interviewed she became very upset
25 when we got to the sexual massages that she did for
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224057
19
1 Mr. Epstein. At this point, this is as much as we know
2 at this point of what occurred with Mr. Epstein and
3
4 She did three to four massages and those last
5 massages they became more sexual in nature, he asked her
6 again to remove her clothing, this time she took her
7 shirt off, he asked her to take her bra off, she said
8 no.
9 He again would touch her breasts, he would
10 touch her butt, he did continue to masturbate, this time
11 she believes he ejaculated. He continued to compliment
12 her, tell her she had a nice body and that she was
13 pretty.
14 says that he was very nice and engaged
15 her in conversation, asked her, you know, if she had a
16 boyfriend. In the last massage she discusses with me,
17 and this massage Mr. Epstein told her to stop being shy
18 and asked her to take her clothes off and said
19 that she had a boyfriend and she didn't feel comfortable
20 taking her clothes off and he told her you should know
21 what to expect by now when you come here, and he jerked
22 on her pants as to like jerk them down, so she did on
23 this last massage get down to her bra and underwear.
24 she describes his tone at this time being
25 frustrated and irritated, she stayed in her bra and
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE I
EFTA00224058
20
1 underwear, but during the massage he grabbed her bra and
2 pulled it down and fondled her breasts, he had
3 instructed her to pinch his chest, his nipples while she
4 was massaging his chest, he tried to grab her all over,
5 he knew that she was upset with this massage.
6 At one point Mr. Epstein asked her if she had
7 sex with her boyfriend, informs him that she is
8 still a virgin and he responds what, you don't like sex?
9 And that's pretty much the way that last massage went.
10 Q Now, Special Agent just to
11 interrupt you, you mentioned that Jane Doe number 4
12 became very upset as you were asking her about the
13 massages, correct?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And when she was describing this incident with
16 him grabbing at her breast and trying to pull her pants
17 down and instructing her to remove her pants, correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q You had talked last week about the expert that
20 you had spoken with about interviewing victims of these
21 types of offenses?
22 A Right.
23 Q And you had told us about how a victim may be
24 reticent at first to tell the entire story until a
25 rapport is built?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (
EFTA00224059
21
1 A Right.
2 Q Can you tell the Grand Jury your impressions
3 of your interview with
4 A She became so visibly upset, and a lot of the
5 girls are embarrassed of what took place, but when she
6 talked about the last massage and him grabbing her
7 breasts and fondling her breasts she was in tears and we
8 stopped the massage and we calmed her down, trying to go
9 back there was just too difficult, I could not get her
10 back to discussing anything further that had taken
11 place.
12 I have since then -- I have since talked to
13 again and I feel there is more there, but I just
14 don't think she is ready to disclose what took place.
15 Q So based upon the more than 60 telephone calls
16 as well as --
17 A Approximately a hundred.
18 Q -- 100 telephone calls and your conversations
19 with you think there is probably more than four
20 massages that happened?
21 A Yes, I do.
22 Q was there anything else that you wanted to
23 discuss with the Grand Jury?
24 A Just, as I stated in the beginning of those
25 massages, they engaged in conversation and throughout
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224060
22
1 that conversation, you know, she did inform Mr. Epstein
2 that she was a junior in high school and again she is
3 one of the girls that talks about being Mr.
4 Epstein's favorite, so because Mr. Epstein knew they
5 were friends they would engage in conversation about
6 and would mention they were in the same
7 classes at school and they would discuss the friendship
8 they had between the two girls with mr. Epstein and
9 think that's it.
10 Q All right. If we could turn to the
11 post-indictment to overt act number 4 which appears on
12 page number 5.
13 Did you obtain telephone records for Jane Doe
14 number 4?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And did you compare those with the phone
17 records of and others?
18 A Yes, I did.
19 Q And can you tell us with respect to overt act
20 number 4 what evidence you have related to that?
21 A A review of the phone records indicate that
22 there was telephonic contact between the numbers
23 belonging to and as well as
24 statements that would call her to make
25 appointments.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224061
23
1 Q And if we could go through overt acts 6, 8, 9
2 and 11, all of which appear on page 6.
3 A A review of the phone records on May 3rd,
4 2004, may 14th, 2004, may 20th, 2004 and June 3rd, 2004,
5 a review of those phone records indicate that there was
6 telephonic contact between numbers belonging to
7 and as well as statements.
8 Q if 1 could take you to overt acts 14, 15 and
9 19 which appear on page 7.
10 A A review of the phone records on June 11th,
11 2004, June 20th, 2004 and July 10th, 2004, they indicate
12 that there is telephonic contact between the numbers
13 belonging to and
14 Q And if 1 could ask you to turn to page 8 and
15 if you could address overt acts 24 and 25.
16 A A review of the phone records on July 18th,
17 2004 and July 22nd, 2004, a review of and
18 's phone records indicate there is
19 telephonic contact belonging to both of them as well as
20 statements that Kellen would arrange
21 appointments with her.
22 Q If I could take you to page 9 of the draft
23 proposed indictment and ask about overt acts 29 and 30.
24 A A review of the phone records indicate there
25 is telephonic contact on July 22nd, 2004 and August 4th,
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224062
24
1 2004 between numbers belonging to and
2 as well as statements.
3 Q If I could take you to page 10 of the draft
4 proposed indictment and ask you about overt acts 37 and
5 43.
6 A A review of phone records indicate telephonic
7 contact on August 25th, 2004 and October 3rd, 2004
8 between numbers belonging to and
9
10 Q And if you could turn to page 11 of the draft
11 proposed indictment and if you would address overt acts
12 47 and 48.
13 A A review of the phone records indicate
14 telephonic contact on October 30th, 2004 and November
15 4th, 2004 between numbers belonging to and
16 as well 's statements.
17 Q Okay. And if you could go to page 14 of the
18 draft proposed indictment and address overt act number
19 77.
20 A A review of phone records indicate that on
21 January 4th, 2005 there was telephonic contact between
22 and as well as
23 statements.
24 Q I'm sorry. If you could turn to page 16 of
25 the draft proposed indictment and address overt act
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (
EFTA00224063
25
1 number 87.
2 A A review of the phone records indicate that on
3 January 22, 2005 there is telephonic phone contact
4 between numbers belonging to and and
5 I believe I said on January 22nd, 2005.
6 Q Okay. And if you could go to page 17 and
7 address overt act number 101.
8 A On February 14th, 2005 a review of the phone
9 records indicate that there was telephonic contact on
10 that day between numbers belonging to and
11 as well as 's statements.
12 Q If you could turn to pages 18 and 19 and if
13 you would address overt acts 106, 114 and 116.
14 A A review of the phone records indicate that
15 there is telephonic contact between and
16 on February 24th, 2005 as well as
17 statements.
18 Q Overt act number 114 says on March 18th, 2005
19 defendant prepared a written message to defendant
20 Epstein regarding Jane Doe number 4, could you tell the
21 Grand Jury what the evidence is related to that?
22 A We have a review of the message pads that were
23 recovered during the search warrant that the state
24 served that showed that wrote a message to
25 Epstein regarding and that was done on march 18th,
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (
EFTA00224064
26
1 2005.
2 Q Do you happen to remember what the message
3 said?
4 A I have those with me.
5 Q would you mind getting them out?
6 A Do you want to mark it?
7 Q If you could just read it to the Grand Jury.
8 A It is a message written by for Jeffrey
9 on 3/18/2005, it looks like 4:21 p.m., and the message
10 reads is it okay if will come at 5:00 and there is
11 a question mark.
12 Q And if I could direct you to overt act number
13 116, what the evidence is related to that.
14 A A review of the phone records on march 29th,
15 2005 indicate that there is telephonic contact between
16 and as well as her --
17 statements.
18 Q And if I could take you to overt act number
19 127 which is on page 20.
20 A A review of phone records on April 11th, 2005
21 indicate that there is telephonic phone contact between
22 the numbers belonging to and as well
23 as 's statements.
24 Q Now, if you could go to Count number 8, which
25 alleges that between April 25th, 2004 and June 29th,
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224065
27
1 2005 Jeffrey Epstein, enticed
2 Jane Doe number 4 to engage in sexual activity or
3 prostitution.
4 A on or about these dates we have a facility of
5 interstate commerce, specifically the telephones, ■
6 and which were utilized to
7 set up, arrange massage appointments for Epstein, we
8 have taking upstairs to set up the
9 massage table, she would set the massage table up as
10 well as set up the lotions and the oils, we during
11 those massages Epstein would grab and pull closer
12 to him as he masturbated, he repeatedly would ask her to
13 remove her clothing, wearing her bra and underwear,
14 Epstein would pull down her bra and grabbed at her
15 breast, he attempted to touch her vagina at one point
16 but she stopped him, he masturbated, she believes that
17 he ejaculated, he paid her $200, he told her that he
18 would pay her to bring her pretty friends and would pay
19 her more if she would do more.
20 Q And just so that this is clear to the Grand
21 Jury, June 29th of 2005 is the day before Jane Doe
22 number 4 turned 18, is that correct?
23 A yes.
24 Q so was there activity that continued past her
25 18th birthday?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224066
28
1 A Yes.
2 Q If I could direct you to Count number 17,
3 which appears on page 28, and tell us about the evidence
4 M ated to that.
A we have evidence through flight records that
5
6 indicate on May 21st, 2004 that Epstein and
7 traveled to Palm Beach County on the
8 Gulfstream, we have telephonic contact between and
9 the day before or the day of travel and we
10 have the sexual conduct between Epstein and as we
11 described earlier in Count 8.
12 Q And if you could go through Counts 18 and 19.
13 A we have flight records that indicate on June
14 4th, 2004 Epstein and traveled to Palm
15 Beach County on the Gulfstream, we have telephone
16 contact between and the day before,
17 the day of travel, we have sexual conduct between
18 Mr. Epstein and as discussed earlier.
19 We have also Count 19 on June 20th, 2004 we
20 have flight records that indicate that Epstein and
21 traveled to Palm Beach County on the Boeing
22 727.
23 We have the telephone contacts between
24 and the day before, the day of travel, we
25 also have the sexual conduct between Jeffrey and
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224067
29
1 as we described earlier in Count 8.
2 Q Could you do the same for Counts 22 and 23,
3 please.
4 A Count 22 we have flight records that indicate
5 on July 22nd, 2004 Epstein,
6 traveled to Palm Beach County on the Boeing
7 727, we have the telephonic phone contact between
8 and the day before or the day of travel, we
9 also have the sexual conduct between Jeffrey Epstein and
10 as we described earlier, and Count 23 we have
11 flight records that indicate on August 6th, 2004 Epstein
12 and traveled to Palm Beach County on the
13 Boeing 727, we have telephonic contact between
14 and two days prior to Epstein and
15 traveling to Palm Beach County, we have sexual
16 conduct between Jeffrey Epstein and as we
17 described earlier.
18 Q And if you could do the same for Count number
19 28, please.
20 A Count number 28 we have flight records that
21 indicate on November 5th, 2004 Epstein, ,
22 traveled to Palm Beach County on the
23 Gulfstream, we have telephonic contact between
24 and the day before or the day of travel,
25 we have the sexual conduct between Epstein and .
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224068
30
1 Q And if I could direct you to Count number 35,
2 you testified previously about the people who were
3 aboard the plane.
4 was there also telephone contact on January
5 6th -- excuse me, shortly before the flight on January
6 6th, 2005 between and this Jane Doe?
7 A Yes, two days before.
8 Q And if you look at Count number 40, again, you
9 had previously told us about who was on board the plane.
10 Can you tell us whether there was also telephone contact
11 shortly before that?
12 A There was telephone contact the day of or the
13 day before.
14 Q All right. Between who and who?
15 A Between and
16 Q okay. And if you could look at count 43, you
17 also had testified previously about who was aboard the
18 plane on that day.
19 was there also telephone contact between Jane
20 Doe number 4 -- excuse me, Jane Doe number 4 and
21
22 A Yes, two days before.
23 Q And if I could direct you to Count number 52,
24 which is the sex trafficking offense, and if you could
25 summarize again for the Grand Jury the evidence related
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224069
31
1 to that.
2 A we discussed in Count 8 the sexual conduct
3 that occurred between and Epstein during the
4 massages that took place, we talked about the money that
5 was paid to her by Mr. Epstein and the offer of more
6 money if she would do more as well as if she would bring
7 her friends.
8 Through statements we have also that
9 has paid her in the past for bringing a
10 friend, we have the phone activity between
11 and which started in April, 2004, we know
12 was 16 at the time, we also have phone activity between
13 and beginning in the spring of 2005
14 when would be 17, with the statements of and
15 the knowledge that Mr. Epstein knew their age,
16 and we have gone through that regarding informing
17 Mr. Epstein that she was a junior in high school, that
18 she was classmates with and then 's
19 statements that was concerned because she was
20 discussing prom with Mr. Epstein, and both girls at that
21 time of the phone calls were under the age of 18.
22 Q Just again so it is clear for the Grand Jury,
23 neither nor ever specifically said hey,
24 Jeffrey, 1 am 17, but they provided information that
25 should have caused him to try to figure out whether in
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224070
32
1 fact they were adults?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Any questions about Jane Doe number 4 before
4 we turn to Jane Doe number 5? Yes, ma'am.
5 A GRAND JUROR: I have to say something here,
6 if it is a stupid question forgive me if it is,
7 from what I heard, maybe I heard wrong, there were
8 three to four massages that Jane Doe, or
9 said that she had and you enumerated quite
10 a few sexual contact.
11 How do you know about this, do you have
12 records, how do you know they were sexual contact?
13 THE WITNESS: Through interviewing
14 A GRAND JUROR: She said she only had three to
15 four massages.
16 A GRAND JUROR: Her question is more like
17 there is 20 phone calls.
18 A GRAND JUROR: There is tons of them.
19 THE WITNESS: Exactly, that is what we were
20 discussing earlier when we discussed that there is
21 more than what is willing to admit at this
22 time.
23 A GRAND JUROR: I got it. So she said she
24 only had three to four.
25 A GRAND JUROR: There is a hundred phone
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE (
EFTA00224071
33
1 calls.
2 A GRAND JUROR: You said you found out through
3 I am a little bit confused about that.
4 THE WITNESS: Through interviewing she
5 stated that she had three or four massages from
6 Mr. Epstein.
7 BY MS. -:
8 Q Special Agent , the sexual activity
9 that you described that went through, that is what
10 she said happened during those three to four massages,
11 correct?
12 A Right.
13 Q Does that answer your question?
14 A GRAND JUROR: Not really. How do we know
15 like about all these 25, 30?
16 A GRAND JUROR: There is more dates that match
17 up with the amount of massages.
18 A GRAND JUROR: There were a hundred phone
19 calls.
20 A GRAND JUROR: Are we supposed to assume a
21 phone call was made each time they had sexual
22 contact?
23 THE WITNESS: No. There are lots of phone
24 calls made arranging appointments between the
25 girls, that doesn't mean that every phone call that
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE
EFTA00224072
34
1 was made was a trip over to Mr. Epstein's house to
2 perform a massage.
3 MS. Yes, ma'am.
4 A GRAND JUROR: Couldn't they put anything in
5 this indictment about stalking her, are there any
6 rules against stalking children?
7 MS. I will address -- that is a
8 legal question that I will address when the Special
9 Agent is outside of the Grand Jury. Any other
10 factual questions related?
11 A GRAND JUROR: I don't have a question
12 relating to Jane Doe number 4, it was a question I
13 asked
DataSet-10
Unknown
52 pages
1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
3
4
5
6
COPY
7 RE: OPERATION LEAP YEAR
8
9
10
11
12 TESTIMONY
13 OF
14 SPECIAL AGENT E.
15
16
17
18 Federal Grand Jury 07-103
Federal Building
19 U.S. Courthouse
West Palm Beach, Florida
20 Tuesday, May 22, 2007
21
22 APPEARANCES:
23
Assistant United States Attorney
24
25 oreperson
Exhibit 29
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224077
2
( 1 The sworn testimony of SPECIAL AGENT
2 was taken before the
3 Federal Grand Jury, West Palm Beach Division,
4 Federal Building, U.S. Courthouse, Palm Beach
5 County, State of Florida, on Tuesday, May 22,
6 2007.
7 Paula E. Angelocci, Certified Court
8 Reporter and Notary Public, State of Florida,
9 Official Reporting Service, LLC, 524 South Andrews
10 Avenue, Suite 302N, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
11 33301 , was authorized to and did report the sworn
12 testimony.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224078
3
1 (Witness enters the Grand Jury Room.)
2 THE FOREPERSON: You do solemnly swear
3 that the testimony you give will be the
4 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
5 truth, so help you God?
6 THE WITNESS: I do.
7 THE FOREPERSON: Thank you. Please be
8 seated.
9 EXAMINATION
10 BY MS.
1 1 Q Good afternoon, Special Agent.
12 A Good afternoon.
13 Q Could you remind the grand jury of your
14 name and with whom you are employed?
15 A It's
16 I'm a
17 special agent with the FBI here in West Palm Beach
18 and I work violent crimes.
19 Q Are you the case agent on Operation Leap
20
21 A Yes, I am.
22 Q Okay. Before we get back to our review
23 of the draft proposed indictment, I know that a
24 question was raised regarding whether the grand
25 jury transcripts are being made available to
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224079
4
1 counsel for the defense, are they?
2 A No.
3 Q And is Mr. Epstein considered a high
4 flight risk by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's
5 Office?
6 A Yes, he is.
7 Q So is the status of the investigation in
8 terms of when an indictment might be returned
9 considered highly confidential?
10 A Yes.
1 1 Q And are there any personal relationships
12 between any members of the U.S. Attorney's Office
13 and counsel for Mr. Epstein?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And is that one of the reasons why we
16 have decided to use, In Re: Abbott, when referring
17 to this case?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Okay. Now we had left off just prior to
20 the beginning of the discussion of Jane Doe Number
21 Five. Could you tell the grand jury a little bit
22 about Jane Doe Number Five?
23 A Jane Doe Number Five is
24 date of birth is We have phone
25 activity that began with when she was 17
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224080
5
1 years old beginning in November of 2004, going
2 through to almost April, I guess, to the end of
3 March 2005.
4 We have contact, telephone contact
5 between and with
6 approximately 70 phone calls in that time period
7 as well as approximately seven phone calls with
8 regarding the setting up of
9 appointments to provide massages to Mr. Epstein.
10 Q Now did explain how she was
1 1 first introduced to Mr. Epstein?
12 A Yes, she did. . was the one
13 that approached also attends
14 High School as well as our other
15 first four girls on the board, the Jane Does up
16 there.
17 told her that she would need to
18 wear something sexy, that she would be providing
19 Mr. Epstein with a massage and that she would
20 receive $200, and if she was asked she should tell
21 Mr. Epstein that she was 18.
22 On the first massage that went
23 to Mr. Epstein's house, she removed her shirt at
24 his request and she performed the massage. She
25 was paid $300 for that massage.
OFFICIAL IREPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224081
6
f 1 During that massage, she told Mr.
2 Epstein that she was 18 years of age. He asked
3 her age. They also discussed many things that
4 was interested in.
5 They talked about his ranch. They
6 talked about horses. They actually also talked
7 about cars. At one point later on, Mr. Epstein
8 let's her drive a brand new Lexus, test drive a
9 brand new Lexus. So those were some of her
10 interests and Mr. Epstein talked to her about
11 that.
12 told us that the massages became
13 more sexual in nature and she stated that she did
14 more than ten massages, but that she couldn't
15 quite put a number on how many massages she
16 provided to Mr. Epstein, but it was definitely
17 more than ten.
18 She was not when she was interviewed
19 by the Palm Beach Police Department, she did tell
20 them that it was more around five or six massages.
21 She stated that she minimized to the detectives
22 when they came to interview her.
23 They came to her house and her dad was
24 due home any time and what was foremost on her
25 mind was my dad is going to be here any minute.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224082
7
1 She cooperated.
2 She told them what had happened, but she
3 minimized it more in an effort that she just
4 wanted them to leave before her parents got home.
At this point, her parents were not aware of what
6 took place.
7 As the massages became more sexual in
8 nature, she describes that the first sexual
9 massage he always instructed her on what to do,
10 and on the first massage he had asked her to
11 remove her clothing.
12 She was down to her underwear at this
13 point. He asked her
14
15 He at that
16 point reached through her legs and masturbated.
17 On another occasion, she was completely
18 nude and she did several of the massages in the
19 nude for Mr. Epstein.
20 In this particular massage, she stated
21 that Mr. Epstein
22
23
24 She pulled away and he said that he
25 wanted to touch her and that he also wanted to
OFFICIAL rFPoRTTNG SFRV CE, LLC
EFTA00224083
8
1 taste her. He stopped at that time, but then
2 before the massage was over, he digitally
3 penetrated her again.
4 He had used a back massager on her on at
5 least two occasions. She did not like that and
6 she told him that and he responded something to
7 the effect: What are you scared to have pleasure?
a And she told him she didn't like it.
9 On the second to the last massage that
10 gave Mr. Epstein, she was giving him a
1 1 massage and he took her into the bedroom and asked
12 her to get fully unclothed.
13 He actually took a phone call and told
14 her that she should get undressed and lay on the
15 bed completely naked. He just wanted to look at
16 her. He took his phone call.
17 After the phone call was over, he ended
18 up vaginally penetrating Felicia as well as
19 performing oral sex on a. She said that she
20 felt very dirty after that massage or after that
21 time and she had decided that the next massage
22 would be her last massage, that she did not want
23 to go back.
24 During the last massage she gave, she
25 kept looking at the clock. Mr. Epstein commented
OFFICIAL RF.PCRTTNO. SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224084
9
1 and noticed that she was looking at the clock and
2 she made reference to that her boyfriend was
3 waiting and Mr. Epstein said that, you know, she
4 was ruining his massage and that if she didn't
5 want to be here she should leave.
6 She told him at this time this would be
7 her last massage. She was paid anywhere from $300
to $600 during the time that she worked for Mr.
9 Epstein. It was who took her upstairs that
10 first time or took her upstairs and set up the
1 1 massage table.
12 She was given some gifts by Mr. Epstein
13 as well. She received bra and pantie sets from
14 him, Victoria Secret bra and pantie sets. She
15 also received a book of poetry from Mr. Epstein.
16 She was Western Unioned a wire of $200
17 as a Christmas bonus to
Milk from Mr. Epstein.
18 Q How did I=. get to and from Mr.
19 Epstein's home?
20 A She had a vehicle that she would drive
21 if she didn't ride with one of the other girls.
22 If she was grounded and could not get to Mr.
23 Epstein's house, he would send a car for her.
24 There was a local taxi service and she
25 stated that on several occasions it was a Lincoln
OFFICIAL REPORTTNn sppvicE, LLC
EFTA00224085
10
1 Town Car that was sent and there was an individual
2 by the name of Dennis that she got to know pretty
3 well on the drives to and from Mr. Epstein's
4 house, but that even when she didn't have
5 transportation on those particular times, that a
6 car was sent for her to bring her to Mr. Epstein's
7 house.
8 Q Is there anything else that you wanted
9 to tell the grand jury about
10 A That's it.
11 Q All right. If I could direct you to the
12 proposed draft indictment, draft proposed
13 indictment, and ask you to look at the Overt Acts
14 that involve Jane Doe Number Five and
15 Specifically Overt Acts 53, 58, 61 , 65,
16 69, 74, 81 , 91 , 98, 107, and 1 1 1
17 Can you explain to the grand jury what
18 the evidence is supporting those Overt Acts?
19 A We have reviewed phone records that
20 indicates that there was telephonic contact
21 between and on those dates as
22 well as
IME statements that was
23 arranging the appointments.
24 Q All right. And if I can refer you to
25 Overt Act Number 72, which states on or about
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224086
1 1
1 December 23, 2004, Defendant Epstein caused a
2 Western Union wire transfer order to be sent to
3 Jane Doe Number Five.
4 What evidence do you have to support
5 that?
6 A We have IME statements and we also
7 have the Western Union receipt showing that she
8 received that amount of money.
9 Q And those were in response to a subpoena
10 issued on behalf of this grand jury?
11 A Yes.
12 Q If I could direct you to Overt Act
13 Number 82 involving What is the
14 basis for that Overt Act?
15 A Again, a review of the phone records
16 from and telephone indicate
17 that they had contact at that time.
18 Q And Overt Act Number 88 states that on
19 or about January 26, 2005, Defendant reviewed
20 a telephone message from Jane Doe Number Five.
21 What is the basis for that allegation?
22 A We have reviewed the message pads that
23 were recovered during the execution of the state
24 search warrant and recovered a message that
25 left for confirming an appointment
OFFICIAL RRPORTTNC: RFRVTCE, LLC
EFTA00224087
12
1 that I have a copy of that if you want me to read
2 that to you.
3 Q Sure.
4 A It's a message for dated January
5 26th, 2005, at 1 :30 p.m. It's from a and it
6 says, in parentheses, you know the number, and it
7 says she is confirming 5:30 p.m.
8 Q All right. And then with respect to
9 Overt Acts Numbers 108 and 1 15 related to
10 in what is the evidence supporting those Overt
11 Acts?
12 A Again, a review of the phone records of
13 and We show that there was
MIS
14 telephonic contact on those dates.
15 Q And then if I could refer you to
16 substantive offense Count Number Nine, which is
17 the enticement charge. Can you just remind the
18 grand jury of the evidence supporting that
19 allegation?
20 A On or about those dates, a facility of
21 interstate commerce was used, specifically the
22 telephone between and
23
24 Those telephones were used to set up and
25 arrange appointments for Mr. Epstein. As we
OFFICIAL nn PTTmo eFPVTCE, LLC
EFTA00224088
13
1 discussed earlier during the massage the sexual
2 activity that took place, the straddling of him by
3 where he began to masturbate between
4 his -- between her legs, excuse me, while she
5
6
7 He digitally penetrated her, as we
8 talked about.
9 and he had sexual
10 intercourse with as well as performed oral
1 1 sex on
12 He paid anywhere from $300 to
illillil
13 $600. He provided her with gifts, a poetry book,
14 a Secret underwear. It was
15 who had set up the room with the massage table and
16 set out the oils.
17 And then, of course, we did discuss the
18 private car that was sent to her when she wasn't
19 available to drive herself. He did pay a -- I
20 didn't mention this earlier -- he paid a truck
21 payment for her when she was short on money. So
22 that was another thing that Mr. Epstein provided
23 to and she was 17 during all of this
24 activity.
25 Q All right. And if I could refer you to
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224089
14
1 Count Number 53, which is the sex trafficking
2 offense. Is the information that you just
3 summarized the same information that supports that
4 count?
5 A Yes. The only thing I wanted to tell
6 you regarding her age, she told Mr. Epstein that
7 she was 18 on the first visit. A couple of visits
8 later they discussed her birthday. They were
9 talking about her birthday and her plans for her
10 birthday and Mr. Epstein asked her -- said
11 something to the effect like: You are going to be
12 18? And she said yes.
13 And he said: So you are not 18? She
14 laughed and said no and they kind of laughed and
15 they continued on with the massage. So Mr.
16 Epstein was aware through that conversation that
17 had not yet turned 18.
18 Q All right.
19 Are there any questions
20 regarding before we continue? All
21 right. Let's turn now to Jane Doe Number
22 Six.
23 THE WITNESS: Did we do the count, the
24 traveling count?
25 No, we are not going to
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224090
15
1 do those today.
2 THE WITNESS: Okay.
3
4 Q And if you could tell us Jane Doe Number
5 Six's first name and her date of birth?
6 A Jane Doe Number Six is She
7 also attended High School and her
8 date of birth is
9 Q How did Jane Doe Number Six come to be
10 introduced to Mr. Epstein?
1 1 A . also contacted -- or told
12 about providing massages to Mr. Epstein. She told
13 -- which I'm going to refer to her ase
14 That's what she goes by, but her name is
15 That he wanted cute girls to give him
16 massages and that he would pay $200.
17 We had have contact starting with
18 in July of 2000 between and that
19 phone contact continues until September 2005.
20 Between this time period, we have over 200 --
21 approximately 225 calls between and
22
23 During first massage,
24 brought over there and was paid $200 by Mr.
25 Epstein. She left. performed the first
OFFICIAL PPDriATTMr CIPLIU CE, LLC
EFTA00224091
16
1 massage topless. He asked her to take her skirt
2 and her shirt off.
3 She said no at first and later in the
4 massage, the way puts it, is that he talked
5 her into it and she removed her shirt, which she
6 was not wearing a bra at the time.
7 Mr. Epstein fondled her breasts. He
8 asked her to remove her panties and she said no.
9 He masturbated and as soon as he ejaculated, the
10 massage was over. She was paid $200 for that.
11 She, at that point, she did start
12 working for Epstein on a regular basis. She
13 indicated that she had been there hundreds of
14 times over this time period.
15 She told us -- and I'm going to read a
16 quote to you that she said to me or said to not to
17 me but to law enforcement -- she said -- and this
18 is referring to after the first time that she went
19 there.
20 She said I first told him that I had a
21 problem with it, what happened the first time,
22 but $200 for 45 minutes that was a lot for a
23 16 -year -old girl making six bucks an hour.
24 Now that was a statement she made to law
25 enforcement. Going through her phone records and
OFFICIAL RFPORTTNn gFRVICE, LLC
EFTA00224092
17
1 during her interview with law enforcement, she
2 goes back and forth on whether she is 16 or 17.
3 It's now over a year since she started
4 working -- a year and a half since she started
5 working for Mr. Epstein and going back and trying
6 to retrace her age, she did say that, but we
7 believe at that time she was 17 due to the phone
8 contact.
9 So we are not sure when that first
10 massage started, but the phone contact with
1 1 began in July of '04 when she would have
12 been 17.
13 Q And just to be clear, during that
14 interview with law enforcement, did Alex have
15 access to her phone records?
16 A No.
17 Q And the interviewing officer also didn't
18 have access to those records, correct?
19 A No.
20 Q So she was just saying she couldn't
21 remember if she was 16 or 17 at the time?
22 A Right.
23 As I said, she became kind of a regular.
24 He increased her pay to $300 to $400 as long as he
25 could touch her. She stated that the massages
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224093
18
1 would progress over time and at first she would
2 not take off her panties, then she did.
3 She performed the massages naked. He
4 would rub vagina. He also digitally
5 penetrated He performed oral sex one
6 He would masturbate while rubbing himself on
7 breasts.
8 Later in the times that was
9 performing the massages, he requested that she
10 become sexually involved with
11 Mr. Epstein asked to perform oral sex on
12 and refused and Mr. Epstein told her
13 that if she was to perform oral sex on for
14 five minutes, he would give her another $200. So
15 she did.
16 and engaged in sexual
17 activity less than five times. Mr. Epstein would
18 also partake in that sexual activity as well. On
19 one occasion with all three of them, as we had
20 mentioned earlier in a grand jury session,
21 the massage was over and _was standing up near
22 the massage table and Mr. Epstein
23 penetrated
24 vagina.
25 I think she described it as that he went
OFFICIAL RRIDMRTTNG SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224094
19
1 inside her four or five times with his penis and
2
3
4
5 And when he first digitally penetrated
6 her on the first time, she, you know, asked him
7 why he was doing that. He said: Oh, I thought we
8 had done this before.
9 And later he continues to digitally
10 penetrate her. On this occasion, she said: What
1 1 are you doing?
12
13 Q So at the time that that occurred, she
14 still had a rule with him, but the rule was that
15 he would not penetrate her vagina with his penis?
16 A Right.
17 And Mr. Epstein gave we'll talk
18 about several gifts. One of the gifts that Mr.
19 Epstein gave was a 2005 Dodge Neon. It only had
20 seven miles on it.
21 believes that that car was bought
22 for her. We have reason to believe it was most
23 likely rented and we are determining that right
24 now, but he gave her this.
25 It only had seven miles and she gave
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224095
20
1 that back to him before she got out of high
2 school. And she said, and this is her quote: It
3 got too sticky for me. He wanted more than I was
4 willing to give.
5 She stated that Epstein requested her to
6 have sex with him multiple times and also wanted
7 him to -- wanted her to perform oral sex on him
8 and she refused to do that, and Mr. Epstein knew
9 that that was not going to happen.
10 And, again, that's one of the reasons
11 why she ended up giving back the car because it
12 just was getting a little bit, as she referred to,
13 sticky for her.
14 After that occasion, where he did
15 penetrate her vagina, he paid her $1 ,000 after
16 that. Some of the gifts that she received other
17 than the car, she describes that as La
18 Secret underwear and a bra and pantie set she
19 received.
20 She received Christmas bonuses, movie
21 tickets, VIP show tickets. She went to the David
22 Copperfield show. She met with him. She went to
23 the after party. She received a Louis Vuitton
24 bag.
25 was in a play at her high school
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224096
21
1 and Mr. Epstein sent her a dozen roses -- or two
2 dozen roses, I believe, to her high school, had
3 them delivered to her high school while she was
4 performing at this play.
5 He also for her 18th birthday, he flew
6 her to New York for her 18th birthday, and she was
7 flown up there on her birthday and that was done
8 because Mr. Epstein didn't want to have to deal
9 with the parental consent needed to fly somebody
10 under the age of 18 to New York.
11 So on her 18th birthday with his
12 funding, she flew to New York. She received show
13 tickets to the Phantom of the Opera. Epstein was
14 not present in New York at this time. He was
15 called away and was not there.
16 So she does have friends in New York and
17 she stayed with those friends and attended the
18 show that Mr. Epstein had purchased those tickets
19 for. The other thing about is she said that
20 she would get paid every time she would go over
21 there and she said she feels like she went over
22 there hundreds of times.
23 She said that sometimes he would just
24 have her naked watching TV or reading a book. He
25 would sometimes just ask her to lay with him
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224097
22
1 naked. She was still always paid and he would
2 invite her over for breakfast.
3 He would invite her to dinner and
4 sometimes just to use the pool, but that she was
5 always paid for coming over there.
6 Q Let me ask about a couple of other
7 things. You mentioned the specific conversation
8 about she could only fly up on her 18th birthday
9 so that he wouldn't have to get parental consent
10 for her flight?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And you mentioned the delivery of the
13 roses to the high school. In addition to those,
14 were other events that occurred that should have
15 led Mr. Epstein or probably did lead Mr. Epstein
16 to know that she was under the age of 18?
17 A Yes. One of the things that told
18 me is that she believed she stayed with him so
19 long because she believed that he was going to
20 help her get into New York University, NYU.
21 She provided him on multiple occasions
22 paperwork. One being her transcript. Trying to,
23 you know, do what she could to keep her grades up,
24 do what she could in the hopes that Mr. Epstein
25 with his influence residing in New York was going
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224098
23
1 to be able to get her into NYU.
2 That again is one of the reasons why she
3 stayed because she felt that if she held on for
4 so long hoping that this dream would come true.
5 She is currently attending Florida State
6 University and doing very well.
7 Q Do we have any other documentation of
8 receiving payments from someone who worked
9 for Mr. Epstein?
10 A We have Janusz Banasiak. It was a house
1 1 manager for Mr. Epstein and we were able to get
12 his petty cash receipts and in there is a payment
13 that he paid out of his funds to I'll'
14 Q Now was ever shown any photo
15 lineup?
16 A Yes, she was.
17 Q And was she able to identify any of the
18 defendants?
19 A She identified
20 Q And was that the photo array that was
21 shown to her?
22 A Yes, it was.
23 Q Was -- are counsel for the
24 defendants aware of allegations against Mr.
25 Epstein?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224099
24
1 A Yes.
2 Q And have they attempted to discredit
3 her?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And is one of the bases for their
6 attempt to discredit her the fact that she didn't
7 appear before the State Grand Jury?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Are you aware of whether or not Alex was
10 ever subpoenaed to appear before the State Grand
11 Jury?
12 A There was a subpoena issued to her. I'm
13 not sure if she received that. Either she
14 received it the day before or she didn't receive
15 it at all and I would need to check my notes and
16 she is up in Tallahassee, mind you.
17 So she was either served the day before
18 that grand jury convened or she never received it
19 and I would need to check with probably the
20 detective for sure on that.
21 Q Okay. Let's talk about the allegations
22 related to Jane Doe Number Six in the proposed
23 indictment. If I could refer you to Overt Acts
24 Numbers 21 , 26, 34, 38, 49, 51 , 52, 55, 62, 68,
25 and 73.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224100
25
1 If you could tell the grand jury what
2 the evidence is that supports those allegations?
3 A Review of those phone records on those
4 dates indicate that there was telephonic contact
5 between and as well as
6 statements that she was called by prior to
7 and while Mr. Epstein was in town.
8 Q All right. And if I could refer you to
9 Overt Act Number 57, which states on or about
10 December 4, 2004, Defendant provided a
11 written message to Defendant Epstein regarding
12 Jane Doe Number Six and Jane Doe Number Seven.
13 Could you tell the grand jury about
14 that?
15 A We have reviewed message pads that,
16 again, were obtained in the execution of a state
17 search warrant that indicates that left a
18 message for Mr. Epstein regarding and
19 who is Jane Doe Number Seven, and I have
20 that here. If I can read it to you?
21 Q Sure.
22 For Jeffrey, dated 12-4-2004. The time
23 is 2:55 p.m. It's from would like
24 to work at 4 p.m. if possible. In parentheses,
25 is scheduled for 5:00 today. The movie is at
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224101
26
1 7:30.
2 Q Okay. And if I could refer you to Count
3 Number Ten, and if you could summarize for the
4 grand jury -- first, if you could refer to the
5 dates contained in that count, on July 15th, 2004,
6 until December 29th, 2004, what was the
7 significance of those dates?
8 A This would be the time period that
9 is still under the age of 18.
10 Q That she was receiving phone calls from
1 1 someone who worked for Mr. Epstein?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Okay. And then if you could just
14 summarize the remainder of the evidence according
15 to that count?
16 A Okay. On or about those dates a
17 facility of interstate commerce was used,
18 specifically the telephone, specificallyM
19 and telephones were utilized to
20 set up and arrange appointments for Mr Epstein.
21 During the massages, Epstein fondled
22 breasts. Epstein used the back massager
23 and vibrator directly on vagina. Epstein
24 performed oral sex on and Epstein penetrated
25 vagina with his penis.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224102
27
1 Mr. Epstein introduced
2 into the sexual activity with . and
3 engaged in sexual activity while Epstein
4 watched and masturbated.
5 Epstein asked to perform oral sex
6 on and when she refused he offered her $200
7 for five minutes. complied. There were
8 different sex toys used on including a
9 strap -on dildo that i used.
10 Epstein paid $200 up to $1 ,000
11 depending on the sexual activity that took place.
12 had taken upstairs. She set up
13 for the massage.
14 Epstein paid for a trip to New York for
15 her 18th birthday, gave her Phantom of the Opera
16 tickets. He rented or provided a car to
17 He delivered roses to her high school, gave her a
18 Louis Vuitton bag, gave her a Victoria Secret bra
19 and pantie set.
20 He also provided her with a bathing suit
21 on a return trip he had to Brazil. He told her
22 that he was going to help her get into New York
23 University. She believed that was the case. She
24 provided him with her high school transcript and
25 she was 17 at the time.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224103
28
1 Q And with respect to Count Number 54, is
2 that the same evidence that supports that count?
3 A Yes, it does.
4 Q Okay. Before we go on, I know that you
5 mentioned with respect to both Jane Doe Number
6 Five and Jane Doe Number Six that they were
7 introduced to Mr. Epstein by
8 Is another Jane Doe who will be
9 discussed at a later time?
10 A Yes.
11 Any questions about Jane
12 Doe Number Six?
13 Yes.
14 A GRAND JUROR: I don't know if I'm
15 allowed to ask this, and you don't have to
16 answer it, but how did the parents do they
17 ask where she got the car and a Louis Vuitton
18 purse? I mean, how do they not know anything
19 like a car?
20
21 Q Did you -- have you interviewed
22 parents?
23
24
25 A GRAND JUROR: My question is that I
OFFICIAL prpnpmtmn 0.-VPV cE, LLC
EFTA00224104
29
1 noticed you are skipping all the travel. Is
2 that something that you are going to discuss?
3 In the future. As I
4 mentioned before, there's -- that question
5 is pending and I want to get a definitive
6 answer before we go through that.
7 A GRAND JUROR: I must have missed that.
8 A GRAND JUROR: I don't see a Count 54
9 on this.
10 A GRAND JUROR: Because it is on the
1 1 next page.
12 A GRAND JUROR: Okay. I'm sorry. Thank
13 you.
14 THE WITNESS: Just to answer a question.
15 The Palm Beach Police Department -- did
16 tell the Palm Beach Police Department that
17 her mother believed that she worked there,
18 and I would need to go back and check, but I
19 believe that she worked there as a -- I want
20 to say like an assistant or answered the
21 phones or something like that.
22 And at one point, her mother thought
23 there might have been more going on and
24 actually did end going over there for a
25 time period, but then she did resume later.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224105
30
1 A GRAND JUROR: Okay.
2 Any other questions?
3
4
5 Q And we will turn to Jane Doe Number
6 Seven. Could you tell the grand jury the first
7 name of Jane Doe Number Seven and her date of
8 birth?
9 A Jane Doe Number Seven is and
10 her date of birth is
11 Q How did come to go to Mr.
12 Epstein's house?
13 A worked at the mall, and that
14 through working at the mall, and Or
15 Jane Doe Number Six told that she could
16 make extra money by providing a massage to Mr.
17 Epstein.
18 told her that she may have to be
19 naked for this massage, but if she didn't want to
20 she didn't have to. We have the contact, the
21 telephonic contact between
22 beginning in July 2004 and through
23 November of 2005.
24 There is approximately 100 calls between
25 and there is around
OFFICIAL BPDORTTNC SRRVTCE, LLC
EFTA00224106
31
1 seven calls, approximately seven calls to
2 in between and and approximately
3 eight calls between and
4 stated that she went about 15
5 times to Mr. Epstein's house. is the
6 first Jane Doe we have talked about that goes to
7 High School and does not attend
8 High School.
9 On first massage, took
10 upstairs for the first massage and set up
1 1 the room. Epstein instructed to leave the
12 room. During the massage, Epstein asked
13 to remove her clothing. She removed only her
14 shirt.
15 described Epstein as being --
16 she described him as a respective guy, who would
17 converse with her. She said that they discussed
18 different life issues such as where wanted
19 to attend college in the future.
20 He also gave her advice. She didn't
21 have the best credit, so he gave her advice on her
22 credit. He also gives her advice on dealing with
23 her parents. She performed this massage and she
24 was paid $200 for the massage.
25 told us that as the massages
OFFICIAL P vs> pmrmn crpirrcE, LLC
EFTA00224107
32
1 continued, they would then progress and become
2 more sexual. Epstein would try to go further and
3 further with
4 By the third massage, had
5 completely removed all of her clothing. She was
6 completely nude at Mr. Epstein's respect. Epstein
7 would fondle breasts.
8 He rubbed her vagina. He did not
9 penetrate -- did not digitally penetrate her,
10 She
1 1 would tell him no on occasions and she would also
12 take his hand and remove his hand from places that
13 she did not want him to touch.
14 Mr. Epstein did use a massager directly
15 on vagina while he continued to
16 masturbate during these massages. On at least two
17 occasions, Mr. Epstein -- at Mr. Epstein's
18 direction, assisted in giving the
19 massage.
20 And on -- the first time tells
21 us that was setting up the room and she
22 remained in the room and started to undress.
23 was surprised.
24 She was never asked or told this was
25 going to happen. This is just kind of the way it
OFFICIAL rFPORTING SERVICE, LLC
EFTA00224108
33
1 went. and both massage Mr. Epstein.
2 and Epstein began performing sexual acts in
3 front of
4 Epstein used a massager on
5 vagina in front of as well as they both
6 performed oral sex in front of on each
7 other. also touched breasts.
8 She touched her -- touched
9 vagina. She took hand and placed it on
10 her vagina and pulled it back, pulled It
11 away.
12 did use the massager directly on
IIIIII
13 vagina. Some of the gifts that
14 received, she did receive also a bathing suit,
15 which we have from Mr. Epstein's Brazilian trip.
16 She received four tickets for her 18th
17 birthday. Mr. Epstein gave her David Copperfield
18 tickets, and on two occasions Mr. Epstein and
19 , they wired money to
20 In June of 2005, on senior
21 trip, her senior graduation trip, they went to
22 Cancun, Mexico. She ran out of money and they
23
DataSet-10
Unknown
100 pages
XXX\
00 )
. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau
of
Investigation 2'1 0t/
M
S ec h 012 93
x.1,1Field • • nminal Investigative
86
E, 4. 6:: ,4..r.i.materand Administrative Files
pursuant to Rule 6(nJ
Armed and Dangerous FOIPA
DO NOT DESTROY NCIC
X ELSUR OCIS
Escape Risk Suicidal
Financial Privan Act / Other eao C-5
see also Nos. 94 ht.k.ll, i-
O
\ \
EFTA01689179
17-1 (Rev. 3-18-011)
•
ATTENTION •
The following documents appearing in FBI files have been reviewed under the provisions of The Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (TIde 5, United States Code, Section 552): Privacy Act of 1974 (PA) (Title 5, United States Code.
Section 552a): and/or Litigation
FOIA/PA O Litigation 0 Executive Order Applied
Requester: AA 4i., We 1.0 ferq
Subject: 'it po y S#041.,
Computer or Case Idintitiation Number: / 2.O 3 n1-OO
Title of Case: Section
*File 3/F —MAA -- 104041
Serials Reviewed: At
Release Location: *File Section
This file section has been scanned into the FOIPA Document Processing System (FDPS) prior to National Security
Classification review. Please see the documents located in the FDPS for current classification action, if warranted.
File Number: Section
Serial(s) Reviewed:
FOIPA Requester
FOIPA Subject:
FOIPA Computer Number
File Number. Section
Serial(s) Reviewed:
FOIPA Requester.
FOIPA Subject:
FOIPA Computer Number.
File Number. Section
Scrial(s) Reviewed: •
FO1PA Requester.
FOIPA Subject:
FOIPA Computer Number.
THIS FORM IS TO BE MAINTAINED AS THE TOP SERIAL OF THE FILE, BUT NOT SERIALIZED.
SCANNED BY DocLAB (RIND)
DATE: —/3 ATTENTION
DO NOT REMOVE THIS FILE
EFTA01689180
• •
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 : 02/02/06
To HYPERION AIR INC
Prom : MIAMI
Topic: EXECUTED FGJ SUBPOENA
Reason for Permanent Charge-Out:
transfer to subpoena sub
Transferred to:
Case ID: 31E-MM-108062-SBP Serial: 7
Employee: I l=a
3/6 /07062-, (
EFTA01689181
FD-302 (Rev. 10-6-95)
• •
-1.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Ntedmmaiptio 03/07/2007
Dr. chiropractor, date of birth
oc a ecuri y ccount Number was
in erviewe a is place of employment,
Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida, telephone was advised of the
identity of the interviewing agent and purpose of the interview.
voluntarily provided the following information:
performed chiropractic treatments for Jeffrey
Epstein on approximately 3 or 4 occasions. Epstein visited the
nce and traveled to Epstein's Palm
ac , For il wo or three times to treat Epstein's back
esierwec
and knee. Epstein's knee suffered a meniscus injury.
The treatments at Epstein's residence were conducted in
the first floor living room area which overlooked the swimming
pool. Sould not recall specific names of other individuals
he encountered at Epstein's residence but advised that Epstein's
secretary (name unknown) was present and went upstairs to receive a
massage from wife, Massage Therapist
Females in their mid-20's and unknown staff memWilil l.e
observed at the residence during Dr. home visits.
telephone S performed massage
therapy for Epstein and his staff members on numerous occasions.
as frequently requested based on her skills as a massage
therapist. Fees were approximately $100.00 for a masses e conducted
by and $300.00 or higher for an adjustment by Dr.
At the conclusion of the interview, was served
with a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena for his appearance, with
documents, at the U.S. District Courthouse, 701 Clematis Street,
West Palm Beach, Florida, on March 13, 2007.
Investigation ° 03/06/2007 at Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
Filet 31E-MM-108062 Date dictated 03/07/2007
by SA
This document contains neither recommendations ,tor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FRI and is loaned to your agency;
it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.
Jig- ',Am- or oz, --yge
EFTA01689182
FD-302 (Rey. 10-6-9a)
• 066.fr e- 07. 7o 2_
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
•
ori•a to e was a•vs e o -ne
identity of t e interviewing agent an• purpose of the interview.
voluntarily provided the following information:
performed treatments for Jeffrey
3 1111!!!!!!!s. Epstein visited the
once and traveled to Epstein's Palm
Beac , Florida rem. ence two or t!T!!"mes to treat Epstein's back
and knee. Epstein's knee suffered a meniscus injury.
The treatments at Epstein's residence were conducted in
the first fl r living room area which overlooked the swimming
pool. could not recall specific names of other individuals
he encoun ere at Epstein's residence but advised that Epstein's
secretary (na ) was present and went e a
massage from wife, Massage Therapist
Females in their mi - O's and unk ers were a so
observed at the residence during Tome visits.
, tele hone performed massage
apy forEpstein and his staff members on numerous occasions.
0by
ei
was frequently requested based on her skills as a massage
st. Fees were approximately $100.00 for a m
and $300.00 or higher for an adjustment by .
ucted
At the conclusion of the interview, was served
with a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena for his appearance, with
documents, at the U.S. District Courthouse, 701 Clematis Street,
West Palm Beach, Florida, on March 13, 2007.
mvaligiatiee on 03/06/2007 et Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
Niels 31E-MM-108062 Date dictated 03/07/2007
by SA .
This document contains neitha 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. •
14/3/e - iopoo.7- 72-
EFTA01689183
(Rev. I-314W3)
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: IN;
GHISLAINE N. MA WELL
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.
••
A :2
‘.4 re
rt
t
6*
_e4 y r
~sP "
3/g - - Ano -
EFTA01689184
Dirojrrof.ec
(Rev. hM-2aM
• •
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.
Precedence: ROUTINE Date: 03/21/2007
To: Tampa Attn: SSA
Orlando RA
From: Miami
PB-2/PBCRA
Contact: SA Jason R. Richards
Approved By:
Drafted By :jrr
Case ID #: 31E-MM-108062 (Pending)
Title: FFREv P IN;
GHISLANE MAXWEL ;
WSTA - CHILD PROSTITUTION
Synopsis: To request travel reference captioned'matter.
Administrative: between SA Jason R.
Richards 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 e of interviewing
Victim/Witness tly residing in
Orlando, Florida.
Richards will trave o interview
3 1-E: /IP"( ° (0.2-7k{
EFTA01689185
To:
Re:
Tampa From: likiami
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.
••
EFTA01689186
•A
FD-302 (Rev. 104-95)
-1-
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Mteetranscrision 01/23/2007
was interviewed in the town of Palm
Beach, Flor a regar ng a federal investigation involving the
sexual exploitation of minors. After being advised of the identity
terviewing agents and the nature of the interview,
provided the following information:
was employed as a
for j n EPSTEIN at EPSTEI s rest ence, rillo
alm Beach, Florida, in August or September 2004.
worked for EPSTEIN for approximately six months.
that when EPSTEIN was in town he was an early
riser. was expected to be available at all times, seeing
to EPS R .--es and the nee TEIN's guest. When EPSTEIN
hired EPSTEIN told that he had many
girlfrien.s hat he must be iscreet. salary and
the chef's, Unknow salary were paid from the
ill
N r Of . ice. hired • , the cleaning lady.
was response e or paying NU and the gardener,
LNu
When EPSTEIN would come to town, wa
$8000.00 cash, and $8000.00 in a checking accoun
visa in his name with.a $3000.00 credit line. The cre
checking account w with Colonial Bank. Another
responsibility of was to keep $200.00 - $300.00 in each
vehicle. He descri a imself as a 11... 4 V. Also prior to
EPSTEIN's arrival to the residence, was io take $100.00
bills and fan them out on a table near 0**Iimil 1 = bed located
upstairs in EPSTEIN's master bedroom. was also to place
a gun between EPSTEIN's mattress in a ho s er t -t was always
positioned tween the mattresses. Once EPSTEIN departed the
residence, would return the weapon to the safe.
state tat there was a manual written by an employee of
EPSTEIN on the duties and responsibilities of each of EPSTEIN's
residences.
According to was EPSTEIN's
assistant. She wo
i raire e lre with EP
ywe 7
was not allowed to s EPSTEIN directly.
wou either have to contact LNU located out of tne ew ork
Office or speak with regar ing matters that concerned
thyestigation on 01/18/2007 at Palm Beach, Florida
Filed 31E- - 0 2 . Date dictated 01/18/2007
SA
by SA
This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency;
it and its contents arc not to be distributed outside your agency.
3/E- Hiti--/D to47-7
EFTA01689187
ti qa•
FD-302a (Rev. 104-95) • •
31E—MM-108062
Continuation of FD-302 of ,Or. 0113 812007 .Page 2
EPSTEIN. liked said that he felt like she
had a !life. said that Christmas time was
and that she was no fond of that time of year
red with a female companion of EPSTEIN,
thought could sh " n" side, but
LNU, a oliss2h girligis more naive., said that EP
was trying to make LNU more sophisticate .
stated that there were many females that would
come to the rest ence. A lot of the m hat traveled with
EPSTEIN looked European or Foreign. stated that the
local girls who visited the residen l e to be younger than
those that EPSTEIN traveled with. was not sure of the
local girls' ages. W by t e interviewing agent if they
were under eighteen, stated that he delivered flowers to
a girl at Royal Palm eac igh School and that some of the girls
had car coled together. The interviewing agent inquired of
IR
un MITI
erage.
rant he believed some of the girls were
nodded his head, affirming that he believed
some of the girls were under the age of eighteen.
stated that EPS directed him to
purchase roses or a local female, was unable to remember
her name. The Unide ' emale was appearing in a high
school drama play. purchased the roses from Extra Touch
Flowers and delivere em o Royal Palm Beach High School.
ok the same OF to her residence two or t
=es. said that under EPSTEIN's instruction,
had also ren e a vehicle for the UP. He said it was a Do ge eon.
L stated that he recalled one female that
tray 1 IIIIIIIII T that looked very young. He bel. name
was (sp) LNU and that she was from California.
remembered
ill her only staying a idence on that one occasion.
LNU enjoyed flying, so w cted byggaTsIN to
a e LNU to get a flying esson. took IIIII LNU to
an airport in LANTANA, Florida. He believe er ame may be
found on documents that were filled out prior to LNU
receiving the lesson.
id that EPSTEIN overall was a very private
individual. said that EPSTEIN t massages
everyday, sometimes morning and night. was asked on
occasion by to pay the girls for e massage they had
provided to EPSTEIN. He' would pay $300.00 or $400.00 dollars from
EFTA01689188
FD-302a (Rev. 30-6-95) • •
31E-MM-108062
Continuation ofFD302 of .On 01/18/2007 .Page 3
his petty cash. cifically remembered paying a
masseuse by the name o LNU,
stated that he did not go upstairs while the
girls per orme massages on Afterwards though, he would
go upstairs and clean up. wiped down vibrators used
during the massage and woul pu em away. He would also throw
tissues in the d take towels to be laundered. had
one occasion, SW recalled seeing used condoms.
sai th he wou wear gloves when cleaning up after a massage.
did not witness any sexual activity between es
an IN. When asked by the interview'n a if had
ever purc any sex toys for EPSTEIN, sta e a he
believed had purchased sex toys, but tnat e had not.
According to other than receiving Massages,
EPSTEIN enjoyed getting Ice cream from a loc eam parlor
with the girls. Under EPSTEIN's direction, and sometimes
Illii would take the girls shopping. If EP
ld stay in the vehicle. The girls would
they liked, place the ' hold, and later
accompanied them
' d something
would
purchase the items. also had travels o e Wellington
Mall where t of er gi is for the girls, i.e. Ipods or MP3
players. stated that on occasion, EPSTEIN would allow
some of the gir s o drive one of his vehicles.
stated that he had taken messages from females
calling relnil liroviding massages to EPSTEIN. He
that an older female possibly in her thirt a
would call the residence. She would to
know that she had female for him. con
other information about
said that GHISLAI L traveled to the
residence with EPS-EIN on occasion. believed MAXWELL to
be EPSTEIN's girlfriend, at first. However, when other females
accompanied EPSTEIN. MAXWELL would take another bedroom in the
residence. said that he thought MAXWELL also would try
ems EPSTEIN. On one occasion, MAXWELL told
that there was $30,000.00 in the safe and that was her
money.
said that the only male visitor he co 1
accompanyill111. to the residence was JEAN LUC LNU.
believed JEAN LUC LNU owned a modeling agency possibly na
EFTA01689189
• V.
FD-302e (Rev. 10495) •
31E—MM-108062
Continuation of FD-302 of .O'1O1/1S/2OO7 .Page 4
MODELS. stated that he believed EPSTE to be the
center o attention with his female compan4 told the
interviewing agents that on one occasion, was preparing
several of the females something to eat in t e itchen. The
females were laughing and appeared to be having a good time.
EPSTEIN entered t ' n and asked the females to join him in
the other room. said that he believed EPSTEIN was
jealous.
also stated that he believed many of EPSTEIN's
female compan on were looking to ma ing of themselves and
were seeking EPSTEIN's assistance. stated that he
believed, in reality, they were accomp is ing nothing.
EFTA01689190
FD302 (Rev. 10495)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Miteoftmwation 01/23/2007
Florida regarding a federal investigation involving the
sexual exploitation of minors. After being advised of the identity
of h ' terviewing agents and the nature of the interview,
provided the following information:
was employed as a
for E'F E EPSTEIN at EPSTEI s rest ence, n rillo
Palm Beach, Florida, in August or September 2004.
worked for EPSTEIN for approximately six months.
that when EPSTEIN was in town he was an early
riser. was expected to be available at all times, seeing
to EPS s and the nee TEIN's guest. When EPSTEIN
hired EPSTEIN told that he had many
girlfrien•s hat he must be iscreet. salary and
the chef's, Unknown(LNU), 1111111ri lipaid from the
or Of ice. hired LOUELLA LNU, the cleaning lady.
was respons or paying LOUELLA LNU and the gardener,
erome
When EPSTEIN would come to town, was to have
$8000.00 cash, and $8O00.00 in a checking accoun . had a
visa in his name with a $3000.00 credit line. The ere it card and
checking account w with Colonial Bank. Another
responsibility of was to keep $200.00 - $300.00 in each
vehicle. He desert imself as a . Also prior to
EPSTEIN's arrival to the residence, was to take $100.00
bills and fan them out on a table near BF TEIN' bed located
upstairs in EPSTEIN's master bedroom. was also to place
a gun between EPSTEIN's mattress in a ho s er t at was always
positioned between the mattresses. Once EPSTEIN departed the
would return the weapon to the safe.
at there was a manual written by an employee of
on the duties and responsibilities of each of EPSTEIN's
residences.
According to was EPSTEIN's
assistant. She wou trave everyw ere with EP
was not allowed to s EPSTEIN directly.
wou either have to contact LNU located out of t e New York
Office or speak with regar ing matters that concerned
Investigation on 01/18/2007 at Palm Beach, Florida
File N
by
This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the properly of the FBI and is loaned to your agency,
it and its contents arc not to be distributed outside your agency.
fun -A2c44.2-7S
EFTA01689191
•
. •
FD-302a (Rcv. 10493)
31E-MM-108062
Continuation of FD-X2 of .On 03/18/2007 ,Page 2
EPSTEIN. liked t said that he felt like she
had a tar t in life., said that Christmas time was
hard for and that she was not fond of that time of year
red l ail i a female companion of EPSTEIN,
thought could sh " n" side, but
LNU, a is girli s more naive. said that EP
was trying to make LNU more sophist cate .
stated that there were many females that would
come to the rest ence. A lot of the hat traveled with
EPSTEIN looked European or Foreign. stated that the
local girls who visited the residen e to be younger than
those that EPSTEIN traveled with. was not sure of the
local girls' ages. W by t einterviewing agent if they
were under eighteen, stated that he delivered flowers to
a girl at Royal Palm eac igh School and that some of the girls
had car ol.ed together. The interviewing agent inquired of
if that meant he believed some of the girls were
un erage. nodded his head, affirming that he believed
some of thellillillire under the age of eighteen.
stated that EPS directed him to
purchase roses or a local female, was unable to remember
her name. The Unide emale was appearing in a high
school drama play. purchased the roses from Extra Touch
Flowers and delivered them to Royal Palm Beach High School.
ok the same UF to her residence two or t
Imes. said that under EPSTEIN's instruction,
had alsonted
re a vehicle for the UF. He said it was a D ge eon.
stated that he recalled one female that
trave e wit EPSTEIN that looked very young. He belj name
was (sp) LNU and that she was from California.
reme ered her only staying a idence on that one occasion.
enjoyed flying, so cted I TEIN to
LNU to get a flying esson. took LNU to
an airport in LANTANA, Florida. He believe er ame may be
found on documents that were filled out prior to LNU
receiving the lesson.
id that EPSTEIN overall was a very private
individual said that EPSTEIN would set massages
everyday, some -Imes morning and night. was asked on
occasion by to pay the girls for t e massage they had
provided to N. He would pay $300.00 or $400.00 dollars from
EFTA01689192
•
FT.)-302a(4vJO.645) • •
31E-MM-108062
Continuation of FD-302 of .N01/18/2007 .Page 3
his petty cash: cifically remembered paying a
masseuse by the name o LNU.
stated that he did not go upstairs while the
girls per orme massages on Afterwards though, he would
go upstairs and clean up. wiped down vibrators used
during the massage and woul put t em away. He would also throw
tissues in the d take towels to be laundered. han
one occasion, recalled seeing used condoms.
s i he wou wear gloves when cleaning up after a massage.
did not witness any sexual activity between es.
Oil,
an IN. when asked by the interview' if had
ever purchased any sex toys for EPSTEIN, state t.at he
believed had purchased sex toys, bu t at e had not.
According to other than receiving massages,
EPSTEIN enjoyed getting ice cream from a loc eam parlor
with the girls. Under EPSTEIN's direction, and sometimes
would take the girls shopping. If EP TEIN accompanied them
I lligld stay in the vehicle. The girls would ' d something
they liked, place the i - hold, and later liii would
purchase the items. I l i, also had traveled to t e Wellington
Mall where he bought ot.er gi is for the girls, i.e. Ipods or MP3
players. stated that on occasion, EPSTEIN would allow
some of the gir_s to drive one of his vehicles.
stated that he had taken messages from females
calling regarding providing massages to EPSTEIN. He also s ted
that an older female possibly in her thirt' d LNU,
would call the residence. She would to et EPSTEIN
know that she had female .m. cou provide no
other information about
said that GHISLAINE MAXWELL traveled to the
residence IIMILIN on occasion. believed MAXWELL to
be EPSTEIN's girlfriend, at first. However, when other females
accompanied EPSTEIN MAXWELL would take another bedroom in the
residence. said that he thought MAXWELL also would try
to find fema es or PSTEIN. On one occasion, MAXWELL told
that there was $30,000.00 in the safe and that was her
money.
said that the only male visitor he co 1
accompanying." to the residence was JEAN LUC LNU.
believed JEAN LUC LNU owned a modeling agency possibly name
EFTA01689193
IR
FD-302a (Rev. 10495)
31E-MM-108062
Continuttion of FD-302 of ,On 01/18/2007 met 4
stated that he believed EPSTEIN want to be the
cen er o a ention with his female compan4 told the
interviewing agents that on one occasion, was preparing
several of the females something to eat in e i chen. The
females were laughing and appeared to be having a good time.
EPSTEIN entered t • n and asked the females to join him in
the other room. • said that he believed EPSTEIN was
jealous.
also stated that he believed many of EPSTEIN's
female companions were looking to ma s m ing of themselves and
were seeking EPSTEIN's assistance. stated that he
believed, in reality, they were accomp is Ing nothing.
EFTA01689194
FD-302 (Rev. 10-6-93)
• •
-i-
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Data of transcription 02/04/2007
as interviewed in West Palm Beach,
Florida regarding a federal investigation involving the sexual
exploitation of mino t during
Attorney of the
an ssistant United to esAttorney
t e UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. After being
advised of the iden it f the interviewing agents and the nature
of the interview, provided the following information:
was born in Poland and arrived in the
United States in 1990. stated that he became a U.S.
citizen in 1994-95. He applied for many jobs via the internet.
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
with a written contract but paid him a monthly salary.
Due to t e fact that EPSTEIN dealt with a lot of financial records,
stated that he was required to sign Confidentiality
Agreement.
In February 2005,E 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 mainte awn maintenance, and the
grocery shopping wete completed. was provided with
written instructions, approximately a wenty page booklet, on how
to manage the property.
According to EPSTEIN traveled to Pal via
EPSTEIN's aircrafts, the Gu stream or the Boeing 727.
was not aware of EPSTEIN ever flying a commercial airline to Pa m
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 her
residence in New Mexico and an apartment in Paris.
that EPSTEIN rimarily traveled to Palm B
currently
and a Chefilisi
said that the Chef prior to was LNU. said
that the Chef would stay in t eGuest House with him. and
Investigation on 02/02/2007 at West Palm Beach, Florida
File e 31 Date dictated 02/02/2007
by SA
This document contains neither recommendations noe conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your stoney,
it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.
Sic- M gra° ?-d -76
EFTA01689195
FD-3Maotev.10-6-9D •
31E-MM-108062
Continuation of FD-302 of ,On 02/02/2007 ,Page 2
would stay upstairs in the main house. According to
he main house has six bedrooms and the Guest House has
ree e oms. Another in ld a regular
basis residence was believed
that was no longer emp eyed by EPSTEI10100EIN would, on
occas on, r ng other guests with him when traveling to Palm Beach.
If had any questions .ng his job he
would contact or the NY Office. maintained a Petty
Cash fund of $1500.00 for household expen itures. The account was
with Colonial Bank located on Worth Avenue in Palm B e
signatures on the account were EPSTEIN, MAXWELL and
was aware that many females would co
EPSTEIN's rest ence to provide EPSTEIN with massages.
stated that EPSTEIN would receive one or two massages a ay,
sometimes even three. The massage times would be spread throughout
the day. 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 bathrs, would collect
towels and wipe down massage equipment. described one of
the massagers as white/grey, approxima ty inches long, a
round handle and rubber plastic end. said that he had
never seen an x toys or used condoms w en cleaning up after a
massage. said that none of the females providing EPSTEIN
with a massage ever appeared upset.
tated that he believed EPSTEIN's assistants,
arranged EPSTEIN's appointments for massages
an es. said some of the females who provided
massages to EPSTEI wou eave messages. Messages were taken on
message pads.
On n sion, when EPSTEIN and were in town,
asked to rent a car for one She told
that e emale would be co he residence to pick
up e vehicle. On another occasion delivered a gift bag
to LNU. said he took e gi t to a trailer park
loillli off of aver 1.
stated that EPSTEIN has a chiropractic table, as
well as, a massage table. The chiropractic table would be set up
in the living room.
EFTA01689196
FD-302a (Rcv. I0-6-95)
• •
31E-MM-108062
Continuation ofFD-302 of Mn 02/02/2007 Mgt 3
said t redecessor was named
Accor he was let because "t.ey" did
not like the wa ucted himself. continued
stating that could not remember to finis. one task if he
were asked to complete another task at or during the same time.
stated EPSTEIN had two guns and two ns
that he kept in t e safe. When EPSTEIN came to town,
would place one of the guns in a holster that was between t e
mattresses of EPSTEIN's bed located upstairs in the EPSTEIN's
master bedroom.
Pursuant to a Grand Jury Subpoena, supplied the
interviewing agents with a his Petty as reports. Upon
review of the report with he provided the following
information:
9
2 27/2005 All Star Taxi $22.00 Taxi fare - on occasion
IIIIIIII( would use a taxi and other times the females would
arrive epart by taxi.
15 3 1/2005 iiiiiii00.00 - Per EPSTEIN, pill told
to pay Last nown(LNU). Nett er STEIN
nor were present when LNU picked up the money.
14) 3 14 2004 $400.00 Cash for - called and
asked to pay LNinenoney.
7) 3 15 2005 IIIIIIIIII $300.00 Cash req. by JE - EPSTEIN
asked for cat o pay LNU.
4 3 30/2005 200.00 Cash req. by JE - EPSTEIN asked
for cash to pay LNU.
25 4 20/2005
if or cash II,
.1111,00 Cash req. by JE - EPSTEIN asked
LNU.
/7/2005 $200.00 Cash - aid that
.. 17)
robably ca e requesting him to pay
$1.0 Cash - EPSTEIN or
LNU.
requested o pay LNU.
17) 6/20 2005 0 Cash - EPSTEIN or
requested •o pay LNU.
EFTA01689197
FD-302a (Rev. 1049$)
31E-MM-108062
OmlinualiondFD402of Mo 02/02/2007 ,Page 4
40) 6/26/2005 Down $200.004ish req. by GM - stated
that the nam ould have been and GHISLAINE MAXWELL requested
that he pay LNU.
4) 9/2 pill 0 Cash - EPSTEIN or
requested o pay LNU.
12) 12/12/2005 pill $500.00 Bonus performed
heavy work outside e ouse.
16) 3/19/2006 Toys R us $21.29 Toys for - see next
entry.
17 3 19 2 Babies R us or cording
to call d an $15.97
sked MMiiiiii to y LNU a
baby gi . told thatm!!!!!
'would
m let him now
whether to e iver them or not. To date, the gifts have not been
delivered.
Note: Other entries in ired about but not limited to included
airline entries - personal business; taxi entries -
and unidentified females utilized to come and go from the
rest ence; Bed Bath and Beyond - Household goods; Francis - extra
cleaning service; vehicle entries - maintenance and specified
amounts of monies in vehicles at all time. LOUELLA LNU was a
cleaning lady and LNU was a possible Russian Masseuse.
stated that EPSTEIN has only returned to Palm
Beach once or an overnight stay to attend State court. According
to MIMI the last time EPSTEIN was at the Palm Beach e
was prior o the execution of the State search warrant.
also said that approximat e wee efore the execut
the State search warrant and LNU came to the
DataSet-10
Unknown
32 pages
06/2005)Scaled Conancnt Tracking Ran
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Southern District of Florida
Misc. Number: 064266-1RJ
In Re FILED by
Records of the Electronic
Communications Service
Known as Cingular Wireless
SEP 2 0 2006
CLAIKNCC MADDOX
CLERK U.S. DIST. CT.
5.0. OF VIA. • W.I.B.
SEALED DOCUMENT TRACKING FORM
Pony Filing Matter Under Seal Name: U.S. Attorneys Me
Address: 500 S. Ausuakan Ave. Sub 400. West Pakn Death. FL 33401
Telephone:
On behalf of (select one): 0 aktiainsiff- 44/044 - ❑ Defendant
Date scaled document filed: 920.2006
If sealed pursuant to statute, cite statute:
If sealed pursuant to previously entered protective order, date of order and docket entry number:
The matter should remain sealed until:
Conclusion of Trial El Arrest of First Defendant
Case Closing EI Conclusion of Direct Appeal
Other: nme for production of discover/ or further Order of the Court
Permanently. Specify the authorizing law, rule, court order:
The moving party requests that when the sealing period expires, the filed matter should be (select one):
Unsealed and placed in the public portion of the court file 0 Destroyed
❑ Returned to the party or counsel for the party, as identified above
Ist" V/
ik
A morn( y for: lAovanl Unilod Stales o
SDNY_GM_02762963
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA 00249806
EFTA01333054
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FILED by D.07
Case No. 06-8266-LRJ
IN RE:
SEP 20 2006
RECORDS OF THE ELECTRONIC
CLA/MENCl MADDOX
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE KNOWN DIrtk V.S. DIST. CT.
AS CINGULAR WIRELESS
MOTION TO SEAL
The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States
Attorney, hereby moves to seal its Motion for Order of Disclosure under 18 U.S.C. § 2703:
1. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2703 and 2705 provide for the disclosure or
non-disclosure of Motions and Orders filed pursuant to Section 2703. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
2703(cX3), the United States is not required to disclose the existence of this Motion and the Court's
Order to the consumer.
2. Title 18, United States Code, Section 2705(b) provides that, when the government
is not required to disclose its request to the customer, a Court can order non-disclosure by the service
provider when such disclosure may result in (1) endangering the life or physical safety of an
individual, (2) flight from prosecution, (3) destruction of or tampering with evidence;
(4) intimidation of potential witnesses; or (5) otherwise seriously jeopardize an investigation or
unduly delay a trial. General Rule 5.4(B) of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida
provides that a document may be ordered sealed when there is"a reasonable basis for departing from
the general police of a public filing."
3. As set forth in the Motion, there is reason to believe that the disclosure of the Motion
SDNY_GM_02762964
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA_00249807
EFTA01333055
and Order, as well as Cingular Wireless's compliance with the Order would likely result in
tampering with or destruction of evidence or flight from prosecution.
WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that, consistent with the guidelines
enunciated in 18 U.S.C. § 2705(6) and the Court's equitable powers under S.D. Fl. Gen. R. 5.4(B),
the Motion for Order of Disclosure under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 and the Order of Disclosure be sealed
until the time for production of discovery after the arrest of the-target of the investigation or further
Order of the Court.
Respectfully submitted,
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
By:
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNE
Florida Bar No.
500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
TEL:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
2
SDNY_GM_02762965
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA 00249808
EFTA01333056
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 06-8266•LRJ FILED by D.C.
IN RE:
RECORDS OF THE ELECTRONIC SEP 2 0 2OO6
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE KNOWN CLARENCE MA000X
AS C1NGULAR WIRELESS C , VT% U 5. OISE CT.
S.D. Of II A. • W.P.B.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the Motion for Order of Disclosure under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 and the
Order of Disclosure be sealed until the time for production of discovery after the arrest of the target
of the investigation or until further Order of the Court.
DONE AND ORDERED in chambers this _2.O day of September, 2006, at Fort
Pierce, Florida.
R. JOHNSO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: West Palm Beach Certified to be a true and
correct copy of the document on file
Clarence Maddox, Clerk,
U. S. District Court
Sou irn pi tact Florida
Deputy Clerk
SDNY_GM_02762966
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA 00249809
EFTA01333057
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 06-8266-LRJ
IN RE: RECORDS OF THE
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
SERVICE KNOWN AS
CINGULAR WIRELESS
MOTION FOR ORDER OF DISCLOSURE UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 2703
FILED UNDER SEAL
I. COMES now the United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant
United States Attorney, and moves this Court for an order to Cingular Wireless,
West Palm Beach, FL 33407, to provide records and other information pertaining to two
ofits customers, that is, Jeffrey Epstein and The records and other information sought
are set forth in Attachment A to this motion.
2. Pursuant to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701, et seq.,
a court order rather than a subpoena is necessary to obtain the desired information because Cingular
Wireless is an "electronic communications service" and this motion and proposed order seek
records and other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service. 18 U.S.C.
§ 2703(c).
3. The applicable statute provides:
A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service
or remote computing service to disclose a record or other information pertaining to
'Electronic communications service means "any service which provides to users thereof the
ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications." 18 U.S.C. § 2510(15).
SDNY_GM_02762967
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA 00249810
EFTA01333058
a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of
communications) only when the governmental entity —
* * *
(B) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section;
18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(1)(3). Thus a court order is one permitted way to recover transactional data
but not content from an electronic communications service. Subsection (d) states:
(d) Requirements for a court order -- A court order fordisclosure under subsection
(b) or (c) may be issued by any court that is a court of competent jurisdiction
described in section 3127(2XA) and shall issue only if the government entity offers
specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe
that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other
information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.
18 U.S.C. § 2703(d). Thus the burden on the United States in obtaining such an order is to present
specific facts showing reasonable grounds to believe the material sought is relevant to a criminal
investigation.
4. This court is a "court of competent jurisdiction" because it is "a district court of the
United States (including a magistrate of such court) . . ." 18 U.S.C. § 3127(2XA).
5. As further described below, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating
violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422 and 2423, which outlaw the use of "any
facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce" to persuade, induce, or entice any individual
under the age of 18 to engage in prostitution or sexual activity (§ 2422), and the travel in interstate
commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct (§ 2423).
6. Beginning in October 2005, the City of Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD")
began investigating Jeffrey Epstein, a part-time resident of the City of Palm Beach, along with his
personal assistant, PBPD obtained information from a fourteen-year-old girl who
lives in Loxahatchce, Florida, in the Southern District of Florida, and who attended Royal Palm
-2-
SDNY_GM_02762968
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA_00249811
EFTA01333059
Beach High School, also in the Southern District of Florida. The fourteen-year-old girl informed
PBPD that she had been paid $300 by Jeffrey Epstein to perform a "sexual massage," which entailed
providing a massage to Jeffrey Epstein while Epstein was naked and the fourteen-year-old was
wearing only her thong panties. During the massage, Jeffrey Epstein masturbated himself and
touched the fourteen-year-old's vagina over her thong panties both with his hand and with a
vibrator/massager.
7. Following the receipt of the information from the fourteen-year-old, PBPD began
interviewing a series of girls, ranging in age from fourteen through mid-twenties, who reported a
similar series of events.' In particular, the girls described how they were contacted via telephone,
primarily ba, 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 home, usually in the company of another
girl. The girls would enter Epstcin'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 usually
was already set up. The girls were told to undress — some undressed only partially and some
undressed completely. Epstein would enter the room partially dressed, usually wearing only a towel.
Epstein often would remove the towel and get onto the massage table face down. While lying face
down, Epstein instructed the girl how to massage him, including in some instances "straddling him"
so that Epstein's buttocks and the girl's buttocks touched. 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 how to conduct the massage. Epstein also would masturbate himselfand
occasionally would manually fondle the vaginal area of the girl — sometimes over the panties,
'All of the girls did not report identical events. This summary includes the most common
occurrences from the girls' interviews.
-3-
SDNY_GM_02762969
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA_002498 I 2
EFTA01333060
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 home. The girls received
between $200 and $300 for the sexual massage.
8. In addition to these sexual massages, some of the girls were paid additional sums to
perform more sexual activity, including, for example, engaging in sexual activity with another
female Epstein employee, while Epstein watched.
9. During the course ofPBPD'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 ("CPU's") were
removed from the house but the computer screens, keyboards, cords, etc. were left behind. The
missing CPU's were never recovered. As set forth below, this suggests that, if the targets were to
team of the existence of this Motion and Order, they may destroy evidence.
10. During the search, several telephone message pads were recovered. These message
pads show messages taken from several of the girls who were interviewed and who 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 such as "[V] confirmed at 1I am and
[A] 4 pm."3
1[V] and [A] refer to two of the girls who were interviewed and admitted to engaging in
sexual massages and other activity with Epstein.
-4-
SDNY_GM_02762970
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA 00249813
EFTA01333061
11. During the FBI's investigation, some of the girls interviewed by PBPD were re-
interviewed and additional girls were interviewed for the first time. During those interviews, the
girls related that Epstein's assistant, 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 FBI also has collected the flight manifests for Epstein's two private planes during the
period of January 2004 through December 2005 as well as cell phone records forM, Epstein,
and some of the girls. The investigation revealed that, prior to flights to Palm Beach would
contact some of the girls via cell phone. The message pads show evidence that the girls responded
to those telephone calls and left messages confirming their "appointments."
12. The investigation has revealed two relevant cell phone numbcrs operated by Cingular
Wireless: which is assigned to Jeffrey Epstein, and which is
assigned to
13. Based on the foregoing, there is reason to believe that the items listed in Attachment
A for Jeffrey Epstein and would yield information relevant and material to the ongoing
criminal investigation and will assist in establishing the use of a facility and means of interstate
commerce and the travel in interstate commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct and prostitution,
as well as information pertaining to the location from which the telephone calls were made.
14. The United States requests that the Court issue an order authorizing the disclosure
of the items listed in Attachment A for Jeffrey Epstein and for the dates shown thereon.
41n addition to a home in New York, Epstein also maintains a residence in the U.S. Virgin
Islands. Epstein has at least two personal planes and has been known to travel overseas on those
planes. Epstein has access to virtually unlimited assets. Given the seriousness of the potential
charges in this case, there is reason to believe that, if Epstein and his assistant were to learn of the
existence of this Motion and Order, they may flee the United States.
-5-
SDNY_GM_02762971
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA 00249814
EFTA01333062
15. Applicant further requests that, pursuant to and consistent with the guidelines
enunciated in 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b) and also under the Court's equitable powers, due to the
circumstances described above, the Court direct Cingular Wireless and their agents and employees,
not to disclose to the subscriber, customer, or to any other person, the existence of this application
and any orders pertaining thereto, or of the existence of this investigation, for 90 days for the date
of the Court's Order or until further Order of the Court. As set forth above, there is reason to believe
that notification of the existence of this Motion and Order to the subscriber or others would result
in the destruction of or tampering with evidence, flight from prosecution, or otherwise seriously
jeopardize the ongoing investigation in this matter.
16. Consistent with the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 2705 and to effectuate that purpose and
also under the Court's equitable powers, the United States further asks that the motion and order be
scaled until the time for production of discovery after the arrest of the target of the investigation, or
until further Order of the Court.
17. Based on the above facts, the United States respectfully requests that the Court issue
the attached order in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
By:
Assistant United States Attorney
Florida Bar Nom
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone:
Facsimile:
-6-
SDNY_GM_02762972
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA 00249815
EFTA01333063
ATTACHMENT A
A. All customer or subscriber account information for any accounts registered to or
associated with Jeffrey Epstein, and Jeffrey Epstein, Inc., including but not limited
to telephone numbcrs For each such account, the information
provided should include:
1. The subscriber's account number;
2. The subscriber's address;
3. The subscriber's telephone number or numbers;
4. The subscriber's e-mail address(es);
5. Any other information pertaining to the identity of the subscriber, including
but not limited to credit card number(s) and type(s) and detailed billing summaries;
and
6. Account history for any closed account(s) and the stated reason for closing
any such account(s).
13. A list of all Cingular cell site/cell tower locations along with any code numbers
assigned to each location.
C. For the dates shown below,
1. details for all incoming calls for all accounts identified in paragraph A above;
and
2. cell site/cell tower locations for all incoming and outgoing calls.
12/31/03 through 01/04/04 02/17/04 through 02/20/04
01/06/04 through 01/09/04 03/01/04 through 03/04/04
01/13/04 through 01/16/04 03/09/04 through 03/12/04
02/03/04 through 02/06/04 03/17/04 through 03/20/04
A-1
SDNY_GM_02762973
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA 00249816
EFTA01333064
03/23/04 through 03/26/04 02/08/05 through 02/11/05
03/31/04 through 04/03/04 02/19/05 through 02/25/05
04/08/04 through 04/11/04 03/02/05 through 03/05/05
04/14/04 through 04/17/04 03/16/05 through 03/19/05
04/20/04 through 04/23/04 04/06/05 through 04/09/05
04/29/04 through 05/02/04 04/25/05 through 04/28/05
05/12/04 through 05/15/04 05/04/05 through 05/07/05
05/19/04 through 05/22/04 05/17/05 through 05/20/05
06/02/04 through 06/05/04 05/27/05 through 05/30/05
06/09/04 through 06/12/04 06/06/05 through 06/09/05
06/18/04 through 06/21/04 06/16/05 through 06/19/05
07/02/04 through 07/05/04 06/28/05 through 07/01/05
07/14/04 through 07/17/04 07/13/05 through 07/16/05
07/20/04 through 07/23/04 07/20/05 through 07/23/05
08/04/04 through 08/07/04 08/16/05 through 08/19/05
08/17/04 through 08/20/04 09/01/05 through 09/04/05
08/23/04 through 08/26/04 09/07/65 through 09/10/05
09/14/04 through 09/17/04 09/16/05 through 09/19/05
09/30/04 through 10/03/04 09/27/05 through 09/30/05
10/06/04 through 10/09/04
10/14/04 through 10/17/04
10/27/04 through 10/30/04
11/03/04 through 11/06/04
11/08/04 through 11/11/04
11/16/04 through 11/19/04
12/01/04 through 12/04/04
12/11/04 through 12/18/04
12/30/04 through 01/02/05
01/04/05 through 01/07/05
01/12/05 through 01/15/05
01/17/05 through 01/20/05
02/01/05 through 02/04/05
A-2
SDNY_GM_02762974
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA_00249817
EFTA01333065
UMTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 06-8266-1.RJ
_FILED by D.C.
I
IN RE: RECORDS OF THE
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
SERVICE KNOWN AS SEP 2 0 2006
CINGULAR WIRELESS CLARCNCI MADDOX
TXu S DIST CT.
SEALED ORDER
THIS MATTER has come before the Court upon the Application Under Seal filed by the
United States of America, for an Order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703 authorizing the disclosure
of records and other information of the communications service known as Cingular Wireless.
The Court, noting that none of the records sought by this Application (as set forth in Attachment
A) contains the "contents" of any stored electronic communication, the Court finds that the
application has offered specific and articulable facts establishing reasonable grounds to believe
that the records and information sought are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal
investigation into possible offenses involving violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2423.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Cingular Wireless shall provide to agents of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation the records and information listed in Attachment A for the
accounts and dates listed thereon.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2706, the
provider of electronic communication service for the cellular telephone accounts shall be
SDNY_GM_02762975
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA 00249818
EFTA01333066
compensated for reasonable expenses incurred in providing such facilities and technical
assistance.
The Court finds that there is reason to believe that notification of the existence of this
order to the subscriber or others will result in the destruction of or tampering with evidence,
flight from prosecution, or otherwise seriously jeopardize the ongoing investigation in this
matter. Therefore, pursuant to and consistent with the guidelines enunciated in 18 U.S.C. §
2705(b) and under the Court's equitable powers, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND
ADJUDGED that Cingular Wireless and any other provider of electronic communication service
for the cellular telephone accounts, and their agents and employees, shall not disclose to the
subscriber, customer, or to any other person, the existence of this application and any orders
pertaining thereto, or of the existence of this investigation, for 90 days from the date of this
Order, or until further Order of the Court. The Application Under Seal and this Court's Order
shall be SEALED until further Order of this Court, except that copies shall be provided to law
enforcement as necessary to the performance of their official duties.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this c day of
September, 2006.
A-2-2 A C -
1..laA R. JOHNSON
UNITED STATES MA a TRATE JUDGE
Copy furnished: I ,
I certified b be a true and
coned copy of the document on file
AUSA
Clarence Maddox, Cleric
U. S.
So °;f: Distr:et
. ;attic
Court
f Florida
Pub/ Clork
0: le
-2- /06
SDNY_GM_02762976
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA 00249819
EFTA01333067
AtfAcalalifA
A. All customer or subscriber account information for any accounts registered to or
associated with Jeffrey Epstein, and Jeffrey Epstein, Inc., including but not limited
to telephone numbers and . For each such account, the information
provided should include:
1. The subscriber's account number;
2. The subscriber's address;
3. The subscriber's telephone number or numbers;
4. The subscriber's e-mail address(es);
5. Any other information pertaining to the identity of the subscriber, including
but not limited to credit card number(s) and type(s) and detailed billing summaries;
and
6. Account history for any closed account(s) and the stated reason for closing
any such account(s).
B. A list of all Cingular cell site/cell tower locations along with any code numbers
assigned to each location.
C. For the dates shown below,
1. details for all incoming calls for all accounts identified in paragraph A above;
and
2. cell site/cell tower locations for all incoming and outgoing calls.
12/31/03 through 01/04/04 02/17/04 through 02/20/04
01/06/04 through 01/09/04 03/01/04 through 03/04/04
01/13/04 through 01/16/04 03/09/04 through 03/12/04
02/03/04 through 02/06/04 03/17/04 through 03/20/04
A-1
SDNY_GM_02762977
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA 00249820
EFTA01333068
03/23/04 through 03/26/04 02/08/05 through 02/11/05
03/31/04 through 04/03/04 02/19/05 through 02/25/05
04/08/04 through 04/11/04 03/02/05 through 03/05/05
04/14/04 through 04/17/04 03/16/05 through 03/19/05
04/20/04 through 04/23/04 04/06/05 through 04/09/05
04/29/04 through 05/02/04 04/25/05 through 04/28/05
05/12/04 through 05/15/04 05/04/05 through 05/07/05
05/19/04 through 05/22/04 05/17/05 through 05/20/05
06/02/04 through 06/05/04 05/27/05 through 05/30/05
06/09/04 through 06/12/04 06/06/05 through 06/09/05
06/18/04 through 06/21/04 06/16/05 through 06/19/05
07/02/04 through 07/05/04 06/28/05 through 07/01/05
07/14/04 through 07/17/04 07/13/05 through 07/16/05
07/20/04 through 07/23/04 07/20/05 through 07/23/05
08/04/04 through 08/07/04 08/16/05 through 08/19/05
08/17/04 through 08/20/04 09/01/05 through 09/04/05
08/23/04 through 08/26/04 09/07/05 through 09/10/05
09/14/04 through 09/17/04 09/16/05 through 09/19/05
09/30/04 through 10/03/04 09/27/05 through 09/30/05
10/06/04 through 10/09/04
10/14/04 through 10/17/04
10/27/04 through 10/30/04
11/03/04 through 11/06/04
11/08/04 through 11/11/04
11/16/04 through 11/19/04
12/01/04 through 12/04/04
12/11/04 through 12/18/04
12/30/04 through 01/02/05
01/04/05 through 01/07/05
01/12/05 through 01/15/05
01/17/05 through 01/20/05
02/01/05 through 02/04/05
A-2
SDNY_GM_02762978
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA_00249821
EFTA01333069
Met 092005)Sealed Domment Tracking Fpm
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Southern District of Florida
Misc. Number 0042004-/M
In Re FILED by D.C.
Records of the Electronic
Communications Service
Known as singular Wireless SEP 20 2006
CLARCHCC MADDOX
CLVTX U.S. DIST. CT.
SEALED DOCUNIENT TRACKING FORM
Party Filing Matter Under Seal Name: u.s. Adam's Office
Address: 500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400. Mit Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone:
On behalf of (select one): CI tiaimiff-katojed- O Defendant
Date sealed document filed: 9/20/2006
If sealed pursuant to statute, cite statute:
If sealed pursuant to previously entered protective order, date of order and docket entry number:
The matter should remain sealed until:
O Conclusion of Trial O Arrest of First Defendant
O Case Closing O Conclusion of Direct Appeal
O Other: ilme for producdon of dboreory or further order of dm Court
O Permanently. Specify the authorizing law, rule, court order:
The moving party requests that when the sealing period expires, the filed matter should be (select one):
O Unsealed and placed in the public portion of the court file O Destroyed
El Returned to the party or counsel for the party, as identified above
A7forney for: Movant united Mates d ArhMci
SDNY_GM_02762979
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA 00249822
EFTA01333070
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 06.8266-LID FILED 67 U.C.'
IN RE:
RECORDS OF THE ELECTRONIC SEP 2 0 2006
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE KNOWN CLAAVICC MADDOX
CT.
CL OS V3. DIST.
AS CINGULAR WIRELESS
MOTION TO SEAL
The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States
Attorney, hereby moves to seal its Motion for Order of Disclosure under 18 U.S.C. § 2703:
I. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2703 and 2705 provide for the disclosure or
non-disclosure of Motions and Orders filed pursuant to Section 2703. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
2703(cX3), the United States is not required to disclose the existence of this Motion and the Court's
Order to the consumer.
2. Title 18, United States Code, Section 2705(b) provides that, when the government
is not required to disclose its request to the customer, a Court can order non-disclosure by the service
provider when such disclosure may result in (1) endangering the life or physical safety of an
individual, (2) flight from prosecution, (3) destruction of or tampering with evidence;
(4) intimidation of potential witnesses; or (5) otherwise seriously jeopardize an investigation or
unduly delay a trial. General Rule 5.4(B) of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida
provides that a document maybe ordered sealed when there is "a reasonable basis for departing from
the general police of a public filing."
3. As set forth in the Motion, there is reason to believe that the disclosure of the Motion
SDNY_GM_02762980
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA 00249823
EFTA01333071
and Order, as well as Cingular Wireless's compliance with the Order would likely result in
tampering with or destruction of evidence or flight from prosecution.
WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that, consistent with the guidelines
enunciated in 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b) and the Court's equitable powers under S.D. Fl. Gen. It 5.4(B),
the Motion for Order of Disclosure under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 and the Order of Disclosure be sealed
until the time for production of discovery after the arrest of theiarget of the investigation or further
Order of the Court.
Respectfully submitted,
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
By:
ASSISTANT U.SA.117 RNENY
Florida Bar No.
500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
TEL:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
2
S0NY_GM_02762981
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17
EFTA 00249824
EFTA01333072
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 06-8266-LRJ
FILED by_ _D.C.
IN RE:
RECORDS OF THE ELECTRONIC SEP 2 0 2006
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE KNOWN
CLARENCE MAROON
AS CINGULAR. WIRELESS CLERK U.S. GIST. CT.
/ $0. OF FlA. • W.P.S.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the Motion for Order of Disclosure under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 and the
Order of Disclosure be sealed until the time for production of discovery after the arrest of the target
of the investigation or until further Order of the Court.
DONE AND ORDERED in chambers this day of September, 2006, at Fort
Pierce, Florida.
J r"-
IL JOHNS°
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: West Palm Beach
Certified to be a true and
coned cocy Of the dte...:rnent on file
Clarence Maddox, Clerk,
U.S. District Court
Soutt rn District gf,Flonda
By
Deputy
DataSet-10
Unknown
12 pages
AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY JAMES EDWARDS
1. I am an attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar and admitted to practice in the
Southern District of Florida. I am a partner in the law firm of Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos and
Lehrman.
2. I am the lead attorney currently representing "Jane Doe" in the case of Jane Doe v.
Jeffrey Epstein, case number 08-80893 in federal Court in the Southern District of Florida. I am the lead
attorney representing Jane Doe, whose civil complaint alleges that Epstein sexually molested her
numerous occasions when she was a minor.
3. Defendant Epstein has entered into a "non-prosecution agreement" (NPA) with the
federal government for sex crimes against minors. Under that agreement, the federal government has
agreed not to file criminal charges against Epstein for sex crimes committed against approximately thirty
girls, including Jane Doe. In exchange, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to state law criminal charges
involving solicitation of prostitution and procuring a minor for prostitution. The victim of the criminal
charges to which he has pled was not Jane Doe.
4. Under the NPA, Epstein has agreed not to contest civil liability of any of his
approximately thirty victims — provided that the victim agrees to limit themselves to the damages
provided by 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (currently set at $150,000). Jane Doe has not agreed to limit herself to
pursuing only $150,000-in damages. Therefore, the terms of the NPA purport to prevent Jane Doe from
using the NPA to prove liability.
S. Epstein has filed an answer to Jane Doe's complaint, in which he has invoked his Fifth
Amendment right to silence with respect to the allegations that he molested her as a child. Epstein has
further argued that this Fifth Amendment invocation is the functional equivalent of, and must be
treated as, a specific denial of the'allegations.
6. Defendant Epstein's deposition has been taken on several occasions, in this and other
related cases, and he has not provided any substantive discovery whatsoever. Instead, he invoked his
5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination when asked questions about his abuse of Jane Doe or
other girls.
7. Defendant Epstein has also been served with Interrogatories and requests for
production; all requests have been met with Sth amendment assertions and Epstein has not given Jane
Doe any substantive testimony related her allegations.
8. Jane Doe's complaint contains a punitive damages claim, and Mr. Epstein has also
elected to invoke the Sth Amendment on all questions that would relate to punitive damages issues,
such as his intent when committing the crimes, his lack of remorse and his intent to recidivate.
9. Epstein has taken Jane Doe's deposition. During that deposition he has asked numerous
questions of Jane Doe that suggest that she is fabricating her allegation of abuse by Epstein.
10. In addition to deposing Mr. Epstein, other attorneys and I have taken the depositions of
his various co-conspirators (as labeled by the federal government in the NPA), including
and Each of those individuals was employed by Epstein to bring
him underage girls for him to molest and to ensure that he was protected from detection by law
enforcement, and thus those individuals could likely provide general testimony that would assist Plaintiff
in proving liability and damages, including punitive damages. However, none of these individuals were
EFTA01187465
present during acts of sexual abuse by Epstein. In any event, ALL of those individuals have also invoked
their 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination, and thus have left Plaintiff with no information
about what Epstein or other conspirators inside his house were doing during the sexual abuse of Jane
Doe and other minors girls. This creates a serious issue for Jane Doe in proving her sexual molestation
claim against Epstein. By its nature, sexual molestation takes place in private, with only the abuser and
the victim typically available to testify. In this case, Epstein's abuse of Jane Doe took place in private,
with only Epstein and Jane Doe present during the abuse. Jane Doe has no other reasonable avenues of
discovery to provide direct proof of claim of sexual abuse by Epstein.
11. Additionally, Mr. Epstein has recently filed a lawsuit against me personally that has no
merit whatsoever, a fact known to Mr. Epstein and his attorneys. He filed the lawsuit against Brad
Os
rds, Scott Rothstein, an' (another Epstein victim of his molestation). That lawsuit 'nig 3that i
civil case against him (currently pending in Florida state court) is fabricated and that nd I r
have conspired to commit fr ainst him (presumably that she made up the case against him,
implying that he does not know. While the present subpoena before the Court has been filed by
Jane Doe, the Court should be aware that attorneys representing IMI may also file a subpoena for the
George Rush tape shortly.
12. Despite Mr. Epstein and all of his co-conspirators, asserting a 5th amendment privilege
against self-incrimination, George Rush of the New York Daily news did contact me to inform me that
Mr. Epstein spoke personally with him about issues related to the various charges of sex abuse against
him.
13. Paraphrasing from memory of my conversation with Mr. Rush, Mr. Epstein told him that
he may have come "too close to the line" but that he should not have been punished as severely as he
was and that his conduct was at most worthy of a $100 fine. This is a statement that shows two things
of great importance to Jane Doe's pending civil action. First, it is in effect an admission by Epstein of his •
liability to Jane Doe for sexually abusing her. Jane Doe does not have any other admission of Epstein of
his sexual abuse of her and Epstein has filed an answer to Jane Doe's complaint that has the functional
effect of denying abuse of her. Jane Doe has diligently pursued all possible ways of obtaining an
admission from Epstein of his molestation of Jane Doe without success. Second, the statement to Mr.
Rush is a clear demonstration that Epstein lacks remorse for committing felony child molestation against
Jane Doe. This will be a central issue in the punitive damages case against Epstein at trial. Here again,
Jane Doe has diligently pursued all possible ways of obtaining a statement from Epstein about his lack of
remorse for abusing Jane Doe without success. There are no other reasonable means of obtaining a
statement from Epstein on these subjects.
14. Mr. Rush also told me that Mr. Epstein spoke specifically about one of my clients,
and he made derogatory remarks about her.
15. • Additionally, Mr. Rush said that Epstein spoke directly about another civil case that was
filed against him (Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein); that case alleges that Epstein repeatedly sexually abused a
15 year old girl, forced her to have sex with his friends and flew her on his private plane nationally and
internationally for the purposes of sexually molesting and abusing her. Epstein flippantly told George
Rush that that case was dismissed, in a way to indicate that the allegations are ridiculous and untrue.
16. Mr. Rush indicated that he taped the conversation between him and Mr. Epstein.
17. Mr. Rush also spoke at length to Michael Fisten, an investigator with my firm that was
assisting with the investigation of the case. Mr. Fisten reported to me shortly after the conversation
with Mr. Rush that he had such a conversation.
EFTA01187466
18. While research by other plaintiffs' attorneys and myself has uncovered other persons
that were acquaintances of Mr. Epstein, specifically Donald Trump, Alan Dershowitz, Bill Clinton,
Tommy Mottola, and David Copperfield, we have no information that any of those people (other than
Mr. Dershowitz) have spoken to Mr. Epstein about Jane Doe or any of the other specific victims of Mr.
Epstein's molestation. Mr. Dershowitz is acting as an attorney for Mr. Epstein, and therefore it is
presumably unlikely to question him about any admissions that Epstein may have made regarding Jane
Doe or other minors girls. Additionally, we have no information that any of those individuals or any
other individuals have any taped statements of Epstein's own voice relating to these matters. George
Rush's taped conversation with Mr. Epstein is the only known one in existence, making it very unique
and it contains information not otherwise obtainable through other means or sources. Indeed, without
the Rush tape conversation, the jury that handles the case will not hear any words from Epstein himself
about his abuse of Jane Doe and other young girls. I have been informed by Epstein's attorney that
Epstein intends to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights rather than answer any substantive questions
about the abuse of Jane Doe and other girls at trial.
19. The Rush interview is, in any event, unique and not otherwise obtainable from other
witnesses because it can be used to prove perjury (a federal crime) on the part of Epstein. Epstein lied
about not knowing George Rush. See deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, taken in M. v. Jeffrey Epstein, case
50-2008-CA-028051, page 154, line 4 through 155 line 9, wherein Jeffrey Epstein clearly impresses that
he does not recognize George Rush from the New York Daily News, despite the fact that he gave a
personal interview that we all now know to have been tape recorded. It is therefore evidence of a
criminal event. If we receive the tape, we intend to alert the appropriate law enforcement authorities,
both federal and state, so that they can pursue any appropriate criminal investigation perjury charges.
20. The tape is also crucial for M. to dismiss the frivolous complaint filed by Jeffrey Epstein
against her, as he dearly acknowledges knowing il., contrary to claims he makes in his complaint
a ainst her and also contradictory to other statements he has made in depositions related to knowing
In that regard, this tape provides evidence of other false statements Epstein has made under oath.
21. During a telephone call with George Rush, he provided me more than a description of
the tape, and in fact described the general tenor of the entire interview, so that nothing in the interview
can be fairly regarded as confidential at this point.
22. As George Rush admitted in his affidavit, he played the tape for at least two other
persons who also confirmed Epstein's arrogance as he speaks about his actions with minors.
23. The people for whom George Rush played the tape or told in detail of the Information
on the tape were not "sources' in the tradition sense of the word — all individuals were simply chatting
with Mr. Rush about Mr. Epstein and his propensity to molest children. For example, when I discussed
the tape with Mr. Rush, I was not a "source" in the traditional sense of that term. At no point did Mr.
Rush tell me that I was a "source" for his reporting.
24. Because Epstein and all other co-conspirators have invoked the St" amendment as to all
relevant questions, this tape is the only way that Jane Doe can put Epstein's own perceptions of what
he has done before the jury and the only way that Jane Doe can put Epstein's admissions and statement
s before the jury. As even a quick pefusal of the more than 500 entries on the docket sheet for Jane
Doe's (consolidated) case will confirm (see Case no. 9:08-80119 (S.D. Fla.) (case number for consolidated
cases on discovery), Jane Doe and other plaintiffs have made exhaustive attempts to obtain information
from Epstein about his abuse. These attempts have included repeated requests for admission, requests
for production, interrogatories, and depositions — all the means that are listed in the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for obtaining discovery. These means have all been exhausted without success. Neither
EFTA01187467
lane Doe nor any of the other plaintiffs have been able to obtain even a single word of information from
Epstein about his abuse of minor girls.
25. I made a good faith, albeit unsuccessful, effort to resolve this matter with Anne B.
Carroll, representing the Daily News in order to avoid any court intervention. I explained that we
needed this tape for several reasons, including those cited by her in her pleading. The tape, is
detrimental to Epstein's personal complaint against M. and me; the tape is evidence of perjury
committed by Epstein; the tape is the Best Evidence of his lack of remorse for his actions and will be
presented in the punitive damages phase of the civil trials against him; and, perhaps most important,
the tape is the only way that the jury considering Jane Doe's case will be able to hear Epstein's voice and
own statements about his abuse of Jane Doe and other minor girls. Without the tape, the jury will not
have the opportunity to hear Epstein give any substantive information about Jane Doe's complaint.
Indeed, they will not have the opportunity to even hear Epstein's voice utter any substantive words
other than (in essence) "I take the Fifth." As part of our discussion, Ms. Carroll told me that it was a
"stupid move" for Mr. Rush to play the tape or disclose the tape to other people as he likely waived any
privilege and that, as a result of disclosing the tape, he was at risk of losing his job. I responded that it
did not seem fair that Mr. Rush lose his job or be punished In any way, but that I had an absolute duty to
represent my client and that I would be failing in that duty if I did not pursue this critical piece of
evidence.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
Dated this 23r0 day of April, 2010.
Brad Edwards, Esq.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 23rd day of April, 2010 by BRAD
EDWARDS, who is personally known to me.
My Commission Expires:
EFTA01187468
DEFENDANT BRADLEY J. EDWARDS'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
Epstein v. Edwards, et al.
Case No.: 50 2009 CA 040800.10a7CMBAG
EXHIBIT N
EFTA01187469
r)
AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY JAMES EDWARDS
1. I am an attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar and admitted to practice in the
Southern District of Florida. I am currently a partner in the law firm of Farmer, Jaffe,
Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
2. In 2008, I was a sole practitioner running a personal injury law firm in Hollywood, FL.
While a sole practitioner I was retained by three clients, M, and Jane Doe to
pursue civil litigation against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually arising—rem while they were
minor girls. I agreed to represent these girls, along with attorney Jay Howell (an
attorney in Jacksonville, Florida with Jay Howell & Associates) and Professor Paul
Cassell (a law professor at the University of Utah College Of Law). I fi led state court
actions on behalf of and and a federal court action on behalf of Jane Doe.
All of the cases were r c in the summer of 2008.
3. My clients received correspondence from the U.S. Department of Justice regarding
their rights as victims of Epstein's federal sex offenses. (True and accurate copies of
the letters are attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit "M")
4. In mid June 2008 I contacted Assistant United States Attorney to
inform her that I represented Jane Doe #1( ) and, later, Jane Doe #2( ). I asked
to meet to provide information regarding pstein. AUSA did no advise me
C) that a plea agreement had already tiated with Epstein's attorneys that would
block federal prosecution. AUSA did indicate that federal investigators had
concrete evidence and information t t pstein had sexually molested at least 40
underage minor females, including., Jane Doe and M.
5. I also requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office the information and evidence 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 me. The U.S. Attorney's
Office also declined to provide any such information to the other attorneys who
represented victims of Epstein's sexual assaults.
6. I was informed that on Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA
received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement and learned that the
plea was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. She called me to provide
notice to my clients regarding the hearing. She did not tell me that the guilty pleas in
state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the
plea agreement. My clients did not learn and understand this fact until July 11, 2008,
when the agreement was described during a hearing held before Judge Marra on the
Crime Victims' Rights Act action that I had filed.
7. In the summer of 2008 I filed complaints against Jeffrey Epstein on behalf of ■.,
M ., and Jane Doe.
EFTA01187470
8. In the Spring of 2009 (approximately April), I joined the law firm of Rothstein,
Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A. ("RRA"). I brought my existing clients with me when I
joined RRA, including and Jane Doe. When I joined the firm, I was not
aware that Scott Rothstein was running a Ponzi scheme at RRA. Had I known such a
Ponzi scheme was in place, I would never have joined RRA.
9. I am now aware that it has been alleged that Scott Rothstein made fraudulent
presentations to investors about the lawsuits that I had filed on behalf of my clients
against Epstein and that it has been alleged that these lawsuits were used to fraudulently
lure investors into Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. I never met a single investor, had no part
in any such presentations and had no knowledge any such fraud was occurring. If these
allegations are true, I had no knowledge that any such fraudulent presentations were
occurring and no knowledge of any such improper use of the case files.
10. Epstein's Complaint against me alleges that Rothstein made false statements about
cases filed against Epstein, i.e., that RRA had 50 anonymous females who had filed suit
against Epstein; that Rothstein sold an interest in personal injury lawsuits, reached
agreements to share attorneys fees with non-lawyers, paid clients "up front" money; and
that he used the judicial process to further his Ponzi scheme. If Rothstein did any of
these things, I knowledge of his actions. BreRose I maintained close contact
with my client:1 K. and Jane Doe, and Scott Rothstein never met any of them, I
know for certain that none of my clients were paid "up front" money by anyone.
11. Epstein alleges that I attempted to take the depositions of his "high profile friends and
acquaintances" fp io I ' " te litigation purpose. This is untrue, as all of my actions
in representing „ and Jane Doe were aimed at providing them effective
representation in cm cm suits. With regard to Epstein's friends, through documents
and information obtained in discovery and other means of investigation, I learned that
Epstein was sexually molesting minor girls on a daily basis and had been for many
years. I also learned the unsurprising fact that he was molesting the girls in the privacy
of his mansion in West Palm Beach, meaning that locating witnesses to corroborate
their testimony would be difficult to find. I also learned, from the course of the
litigation, that Epstein and his lawyers were constantly attacking the credibility of the
girls, that Epstein's employees were all represented by lawyers who apparently were
paid for (directly or indirectly) by Epstein, that co-conspirators whose representation
was also apparently paid for by Epstein were all taking the Fifth (like Epstein) rather
• onnation in discovery. For example, I was given reason_talieficiiii
W
pat or
Larry Visoski, Larry Harrison, David Rogers, I c,
Ghislaine Maxwell, Mark Epstein, and Janusz Banasiak all had lawyers
Epstein. Because Epstein and the co-conspirators in his child molestation
criminal enterprise blocked normal discovery avenues, I needed to search for other
ordinary approaches to strengthen the cases of my clients. Consistent with my training
and experience, these other ordinary approaches included finding other witnesses who
could corroborate allegations of sexual abuse of my clients or other girls. Some of these
witnesses were friends of Epstein. Given his social status, it also turned out that some
of his friends were high-profile. individuals.
EFTA01187471
12. In light of information I received suggesting that British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell,
former girlfriend and long-time friend of Epstein's, was involved in managing Epstein's
affairs and companies I had her served for deposition for August 17, 2009. (Deposition
Notice attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit BB). Maxwell was
represented by Brett Jaffe of the New York firm of Cohen and Gressel-, and I
understood that her attorney was paid for (directly or indirectly) by Epstein. She was
reluctant to give her deposition, and I tried to work with her attorney to take her
deposition on terms that would be acceptable to both sides. Her attorney and I
negotiated a confidentiality agreement, under which Maxwell agreed to drop any
objections to the deposition. Maxwell, however, still avoided the deposition. On June
29, 2010, one day before I was to fly to NY to take Maxwell's deposition, her attorney
informed me that Maxwell's mother was deathly ill and Maxwell was consequently
flying to England with no intention of returning and certainly would not return to the
United States before the conclusion of Jane Doe's trial period (August 6, 2010).
Despite that assertion, I later learned that Ghislaine Maxwell was in fact in the country
on approximately 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 magazine.
13. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I
intended to take Donald Trump's deposition in the civil suits against him. Trump was
properly noticed because: (a) after review of the message pads confiscated from
Epstein's home, the legal and investigative team assisting my clients learned that Trump
called Epstein's West Palm Beach mansion on several occasions during the time period
most relevant to my clients' complaints; (b) Trump was quoted in a Vanity Fair article
about Epstein as saying "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy." "He's a lot
of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and
many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social
life." Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery; He's pals with a passel of
Nobel Prize-winning scientists, CEOs like Leslie Weiner of the Limited, socialite
Ghislaine Maxwell, even Donald Trump. But it wasn't until he flew Bill Clinton,
Kevin Spaccy, and Chris Tucker to Africa on his private Boeing 727 that the world
began to wonder who he is. By Landon Thomas Jr.; (c) I learned through a source
that Trump banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because
Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club; (d) Jane Doe No. 102's
complaint alleged that Jane Doe 102 was initially approached at Trump's Maralago by
Ghislaine Maxwell and recruited to be Maxwell and Epstein's underage sex slave; (c)
Mark Epstein (Jeffrey Epstein's brother) testified that Trump flew on Jeffrey Epstein's
plane with him (the same plane that Jane Doe 102 alleged was used to have sex with
underage girls) deposition of Mark Epstein, September 21, 2009 at 48-50; (1) Trump
visited Epstein at his home in Palm Beach — the same home where Epstein abused
minor girls daily; (g) Epstein's phone directory from his computer contains 14 phone
numbers for Donald Trump, including emergency numbers, car numbers, and numbers
to Trump's security guard and houseman. Based on this information, I believed that
EFTA01187472
Trump might have relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein
and accordingly provided notice of a possible deposition.
14. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I
intended to take Alan Dershowites deposition in the civil suits against him. Dershowitz
was properly noticed because: (a) Dershowitz has been friends with Epstein for many
years; (b) in one news article Dershowitz comments that, "I'm on my 20th book... The
only person outside of my immediate family that I send drafts to is Jeffrey" The
Talented Mr. Epstein, By Vicky Ward on January, 2005 in Published Work, Vanity
Fair; (c) Epstein's housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez testified that Dershowitz stayed at
Epstein's house during the years most relevant to my clients; (d) Rodriguez testified
that Dershowitz was at Epstein's house at times when underage females where there
being molested by Epstein (see Alfredo Rodriguez deposition at 278-280, 385, 426-
427); (e) Dershowitz was reportedly involved in persuading the Palm Beach State
Attorney's office not to file felony criminal charges against Epstein because the
underage females lacked credibility and thus could not be believed that they were at
Epstein's house, despite him being an eyewitness that the underage girls were actually
there; (f) Jane Doe No. 102 stated generally that Epstein forced her to be sexually
exploited by not only Epstein but also Epstein's "adult male peers, including royalty,
politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal
acquaintances" — categories that Dershowitz and acquaintances of Dershowitz fall into;
(g) during the years 2002-2005 Alan Dershowitz was on Epstein's plane on several
occasions according to the flight logs produced by Epstein's pilot and information
(described above) suggested that sexual assaults may have taken place on the plane; (h)
Epstein donated Harvard $30 Million dollars one year, and Harvard was one of the only
institutions that did not return Epstein's donation after he was charged with sex offenses
against children. Based on this information, I believed that Dershowitz might have
relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly
provided notice of a possible deposition.
15. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I
intended to take Bill Clinton's deposition. Clinton was properly noticed because: (a) it
was well known that Clinton was friends with Ghislaine Maxwell, and several witnesses
had provided information that Maxwell helped to run Epstein's companies, kept images
of naked underage children on her computer, helped to recruit underage children for
Epstein, engaged in lesbian sex with underage females that she procured for Epstein,
and photographed underage females in sexually explicit poses and kept child
pornography on her computer; (b) newpaper articles stated that Clinton had an affair
with Ghislaine Maxwell, who was thought to be second in charge of Epstein's child
molestation ring. The Cleveland Leader newspaper, April 10, 2009; (c) it was national
news when Clinton traveled with Epstein (and Maxwell) aboard Epstein's private plane
to Africa and the news articles classified Clinton as Epstein's friend; (d) the flight logs
for the relevant years 2002 - 2005 showed Clinton traveling on Epstein's plane on more
than 10 occasions and his assistant, Doug Band, traveled on many more occasions; (e)
Jane Doe No. 102 stated generally that she was required by Epstein to be sexually
EFTA01187473
1)
exploited by not only Epstein but also Epstein's "adult male peers, including royalty,
politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal
acquaintances" — categories Clinton and acquaintances of Clinton fall into; (f) •
owed that Clinton took many flights with Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell,
S and -- all employees and/or co-conspirators of Epstein's that
were closely connected to Epstein's child exploitation and sexual abuse; (g) Clinton
frequently flew with Epstein aboard his plane, then suddenly stopped — raising the
suspicion that the friendship abruptly ended, perhaps because of events related to
Epstein's sexual abuse of children; (h) Epstein's personal phone directory from his
computer contains e-mail addresses for Clinton along with 21 phone numbers for him,
including those for his assistant (Doug Band), his schedulers, and what appear to be
Clinton's personal numbers. Based on this information, I believed that Clinton might
have relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and
accordingly provided notice of a possible deposition.
16. Epstein alleges that Tommy Mottola was improperly noticed with a deposition. I did
not notice Mattola for deposition. Ile was noticed for deposition by a law firm
representing another one of Epstein's victims - not by me.
17. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I
intended to take the illusionist David Copperfield's deposition. Copperfield was
properly noticed because: (a) Epstein's housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez testified that
David Copperfield was a guest on several occasions at Epstein's house; (b) according to
ci the message pads confiscated from Epstein's house, Copperfield called Epstein quite
frequently and left messages that indicated they socialized together; (c) Copperfield
himself has had similar allegations made against him by women claiming he sexually
abused them; (d) one of Epstein's sexual assault victims also alleged that Copperfield
had touched her in an improper sexual way while she was at Epstein's house. Based on
this information, I believed that Copperfield might have relevant information to provide
in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly provided notice of a possible
deposition.
18. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I identified Bill
Richardson as a possible witness against him in the civil cases. Richardson was
properly identified as a possible witness because Epstein's personal pilot testified to
Richardson joining Epstein at Epstein's New Mexico Ranch. See deposition of Larry
Morrison, October 6, 2009, at 167-169. There was information indicating that Epstein
had young girls at his ranch which, given the circumstances of the case, raised the
reasonable inference he was sexually abusing these girls since he had regularly and
frequently abused girls in West Palm Beach and elsewhere. Richardson had also
returned campaign donations that were given to him by Epstein, indicating that he
believed that there was something about Epstein that he did not want to be associated
with. Richardson was not called to testify nor was he ever subpoenaed to testify.
19. Epstein alleges that discovery of plane and pilot logs was improper during discovery in
the civil cases against him. Discovery of these subjects was clearly proper and
EFTA01187474
(.3 necessary because: (a) Jane Doe filed a federal RICO claim against Epstein that was an
active claim through much of the litigation. The RICO claim alleged that Epstein ran an
expansive criminal enterprise that involved and depended upon his plane travel.
Although Judge Marra dismissed the RICO claim at some point in the federal litigation,
the legal team representing my clients intended to pursue an appeal of that dismissal.
Moreover, all of the subjects mentioned in the RICO claim remained relevant to other
aspects of Jane Doe's claims against Epstein, including in particular her claim for
punitive damages; (b) Jane Doe also filed and was proceeding to trial on a federal claim
under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 is a federal statute which (unlike other state
statutes) guaranteed a minimum level of recovery for Jane Doe. Proceeding under the
statute, however, required a "federal nexus" to the sexual assaults. Jane Doc had two
grounds on which to argue that such a nexus existed to her abuse by Epstein: first, his
use of the telephone to arrange for girls to be abused; and, second, his travel on planes
in interstate commerce. During the course of the litigation, I anticipated that Epstein
would argue that Jane Doe's proof of the federal nexus was inadequate. These fears
were realized when Epstein filed a summary judgment motion raising this argument In
respo-nse, the other attorneys and I representing Jane Doe used the flight log evidence
to respond to Epstein's summary judgment motion, explaining that the flight logs
demonstrated that Epstein had traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of
facilitating his sexual assaults. Because Epstein chose to settle the case before trial,
Judge Marra did not rule on the summary judgment motion. (c) Jane Doe No. 102's
complaint outlined Epstein's daily sexual exploitation and abuse of underage minors as
young as 12 years old and alleged that he used his plane to transport underage females
to be sexually abused by him and his friends. The flight logs accordingly might have
information about either additional girls who were victims of Epstein's abuse or friends
of Epstein who may have witnessed or even participated in the abuse. Based on this
information, I believed that the flight logs and related information was relevant
information to prove the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly I pursued them
in discovery.
20. In approximately November 2009, the existence of Scott Rothstein's Ponzi scheme
became public knowledge. It was at that time that I, along with many other reputable
attorneys at RRA, first became aware of Rothstein criminal scheme. At that time, I left
RRA with several other RRA attorneys to form the law firm of Fanner Jaffe Weissing
Edwards Fistos and Lehrman ("Farmer Jaffe"). I was thus with RRA for less than one
year.
21. In July 2010, along with other attorneys at Farmer liliofessor Cassell, I reached
favorable settlement terms for my three clients ., and Jane Doe in their
lawsuits against Epstein.
22. On July 20, 2010, I received a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of Florida — the office responsible for prosecuting Rothstcin's Ponzi scheme.
The letter indicated that law enforcement agencies had determined that I was "a victim
(or potential victim)" of Scott Rothstein's federal crimes. The letter informed me of my
rights as a victim of Rothstein's federal crimes and promised to keep me informed about
EFTA01187475
subsequent developments in his prosecution. A copy of this letter is attached to this
Affidavit. (A copy of the letter is attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit
UU)
23. Jeffrey Epstein also filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against me. His complaint
alleged that I had been involved in Rothstein's scheme and had thereby violated various
rules of professional responsibility. The Florida Bar investigated and dismissed the
complaint.
24. I have reviewed the Statement of Undisputed Facts filed contemporaneously with this
Affidavit. Each of the assertions concerning what I learned, what I did, and the good
faith beliefs formed by me in the course of my prosecutions of claims against Jeffrey
Epstein as contained in the Statement of Undisputed Facts is true, and the foundations
set out as support for my beliefs are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
25. All actions taken by me in the course of my prosecution of claims against Jeffrey
Epstein were based upon a good faith belief that they were reasonable, necessary, and
ethically proper to fulfill my obligation to zealously represent the interests of my
clients.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
fit
Dated: , 2010
Bradley J. Edwards, Esq.
0
EFTA01187476
DataSet-10
Unknown
36 pages
' 0450,V Q+ t-Pc4IA T )
--t el.! '.,1_4, a-IS 4Q/ Ill'21
"'o'fj a l P
EFTA00176111
12/11/2007 11:37 FAX la 002/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
WO. WM II IMkIuI OM. MN
777 South Finumon Sunni
tun Attuuluu, et-tidying, 900'7
Konnulh W. Slam
to Coll WMOr ChrOdy. (213) 080-8400 HICSul Wu:
(213) 6111)-U4-10 (213) 600.8500
leilautektrklond.com www.lorNItuul.com
December I I. 2007
V lajtAOSIMILF: (30a.530-6444
I lonorable R. Alexander Acosta
United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of Florida
99 NE 4th Street
Miami, FL 33132
Re: Jeffrey Epstein
INair Alex:
As we discussed during our telephone conversations un both Friday and Monday
(yesterday). we arc submitting two separate letters that address our broad areas of deep concern
in this matter: Finn, the cluster of limdamemal policy issues surrounding the use and
implementation of 2255. n richly policy-luden but uncharted area of federal law: and second. our
profound concerns as to the background and conduct of the investigation. Consistent with our
conversations, we submit these letters with the assurance and understanding that our doing so in
no manner constitutes a breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement or unwinds that Agreement.
We arc grateful for your courtesy in agreeing to receive and consider these submissions, and then
to meet to discuss them.
As you undertake your study and reflection. kindly allow me to make this pivotal point:
In the combined 250 years experience ofJeffrey's defense team, we have together and
individually concluded that this case is not only extraordinary and unprecedented. it is deeply
and uniquely troubling. The constellation of issues. large and small. renders Jeffrey's matter
entirely sal genesis. We say this not lightly. Indeed, as you will glean from our two letters. we
arc gravely concerned Mat in addition to its odd conceptualization and genesis, the matter in its
day-to-day implementation has been handled in a manner that raises deeply troubling questions
with respect to both federal policy and individual judgment in a system that is, at its best
assiduously devoted to the rule of law. The latest episodes involving 2255 notification to the
alleged victims put illustratively in bold relief our concerns that the ends of justice. time and
aµain, are not being served. Fly way of illustration, hut it is only one among a cascading list or
grave concerns, we now understand that the Assistant United States Attorney whose conduct has
troubled us from day one has quite recently reached out to the attorney fur Tatum and
Chicago Hong Kong Now York San Francisco Washington, D.C.
EFTA00176112
12/11/2007 11 :37 FAX 1b003/033
KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP
Honorable R. Alexander Acosta
December I I. 2007
Page 2
provided oral notification of the victim notification letter. This notification, as we have stated
time and again. is profoundly unfair. But quite apart from our substantive concerns. which are
abiding and which had prompted our appeal to the Assistant Attorney General in the first
instance, we had thought that the notification process had been held in abeyance until completion
°four ongoing discussions with respect to that process. That appears not to be so. This latest in
a baleful line of prosecutorial actions si.th irony. We respectfully cull your attention
to the transcript of the interview with and guide you as the duly confirmed
Executive Branch official charged wit Imo mg judgments consistent with our constitutional
order to the telling fact that Ms. Miler did not in any manner view herself as a victim. Quite to
the contrary. She is not alone.
We draw attention to this episode as but a recent indication of the deepening need for
your thoughtful and independent review. And for your agreeing to pmvide that review. our
defense team is very grateful.
Respectfully Submitted.
• .• -**11 •
Kenneth W. Starr
EFTA00176113
12/1 1/2007 11 :3? FAX la 004/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
AND MIOLIAILP rAKINIVAIPr.
Ckigroop Cloths
153 Eusl 53(6 Strout
Now Yolk, Nov Yolk 10022.4611
Jay P I nIknwilz. P.G.
0 Call Writer Diforily 441.4000
lalkowitz www.kirklantcom
December I I. 2007
VIA FACSIMILE (305) 530-6444
Honorable R. Alexander Acosta
United States Attorney
United Slates Attorney's Office
Southern District of Florida
99 NE 4th Street
Miami. Fl. 33132
Re: .141frey
Dear Alex:
appreciate the opportunity you have provided to review some of the issues and concerns
of Mr. Epstein's defense learn. Importantly. I appreciate your agreement that this submission
would neither be understood by you as constituting a breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement
("Agreement- ) nor result in any unwinding of the Agreement by your Office. Implicit in this
agreement is the understanding that I can share with you our concerns and request a review on
the basis for these concerns. while at the same time assure any client that this submission will not
in any respect result in limn& or lamina, repercussions or attempts by any member of the
prosecution or investigative team to involve themselves io Mr. Epstein's detriment in any matter
related to the Agreement. particularly in the state prosecution. This letter is intended to support
our assertion to you that the manner in which both the investigation of allegations against Mr.
Epstein and the resolution thereof were highly irregular and warrant a full review. We appreciate
your willingness to consider the evidence. We respectfully request that you review Judge Stern's
letter to Alan Dershowitz. faxed to you on December 7. 2007. in connection with the concerns
we set forth in this submission.
I. FEDF.RAL INVESTIGATORS RELIED UPON TAINTED EVIDENCE.
We have serious concerns that the summaries of the evidence that have been presented to
you have been materially inaccurate. As you may know. the principal witnesses in this case were
first interviewed by Detective Recarey of the Palm Reach Police Department (the "PRPIT) and
other state law enlbrcement officers. These interviews (the "witness statement() were olden
tape-recorded thus providing a verbatim and detailed record of the recollections of the witnesses
au a point in time prior to any federal involvement. Unfortunately. the police report authored by
Detective Katy and certain affidavits executed by him contained both material misstatements
Chicago Hong Kong I muffin LOU Atlaulr,r Munich Son Francisco Washington. n.C.
EFTA00176114
12/11/2007 11:37 FAX i 005/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
It. Alexander Acosta
December II. 2007
Page 2
regarding the specifics of what he was told by his witnesses and also contained omissions of
critical and often exculpatory infonnation that was recorded verbatim during the taped interview
sessions. The federal investigation involved interviews with many of the satne wimesscs. We
are aware that at least one federal interview ) was recorded.
We understand that Detective Recarcy provided his police report and certain affidavits to
the federal authorities but did not provide the actual witness statements of the taped interviews to
your Office or to the FBI. nese witness statements constitute the hest evidence available (they
are verbatim and earlier in time to the federal interviews), and they contain statements that are
highly exculpatory to Mr. Rpstein. Because understanding the compromised nature of the
"evidence" against Mr. Epstein is key to a proper view of this ease, we summarize it in detail
below.
A. The Witness Statements Establish That Mr. Epstein Old Not Target
Masseuses Under IS.
Indeed. the witness statements demonstrate that the opposite is true. First. the evidence
shows that the many of the masseuses wet...at:en or over. including inhaling Sjoberg,. Julie
Brabon, Vencro. M. and Christine I=. at the time they
visited Mr. ISpstein's home. Also, there is substantial evidence. found in the sworn statements of
the women themselves, which indicate that, to the extent others were in fact under the nee of
eighteen, many affirmatively lied about her age. mAs IM herself told the PKPD:
- Ilaley IRobson] told the to say I Was I S because said .. . if you're not then he [Epsteinl
won't wally let you in his house. So I said I was IX". Detective Recerey. however. largely
ignored these critical admissions in his Police Report and Probable Cause Allidavit.
Q: At any time, did he speak to you and does he know how old you arc? Did 1w know
how old you were?
A: .. .As a mater of thet. In told me to say I was IX because said
tell him you're 18 because if you're nut, then he won't really let you in his house. So
I said I was IS. As I was giving him a massage. he's like, how old arc you? And
then I was like IR. But 1 kind of said it really fast because l didn't want to nuke it
sound like I was lying or anything. (Swum Statement of 3/18/(15).
• Jennifer
Q: Did he usk you your age?
A: Yeah, I told him I was IS. (Sworn Statement of 10/05/05).
EFTA00176115
12/11/2007 11:38 FAX l 008/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
It. Alexander Acosta
December 11. 2007
Page 3
•
Q: Did he know your age?
A: I don't think -- I think he did. Downstairs was like oh. well if they ask
you how old are you just say you're IR but he never asked me how old I wax. I
thought you had to be 18 to give a massage (inaudible). (Sworn Statement of
12/13/05)
• SIVINdy VCISISCO:
A: We were supposed to say we were 18.
Q: Who told you that, to say that?
A: . (Sworn Statement of 11/8/05).
Italey
A: I told him I was 18. (Sworn Statement of 10/3/05).
• Robson concerning Serina Figueroa:
Well with Serina [Figueroa, I don't know how old she is because she lied about her
age. She lied to me when I first met her. When I was IA she told me she was IS.
(Inaudible.) Well she told her purse at my house and she told me to make sure that I
didn't look in her purse. When I went thmugh her purse I found her state license that
said she was 16 so she lied to me about her age. (Sworn Statement of ICl/03/05/i
Q: Now. how old were you when you lint started going there?
A: Eighteen. I'm 19 now this last March." (Sworn Statement of 10/12/05).
Q: And all this occurred when you were 18 though?
In addition to giving a sworn staletneol ai the PRPD station. conversations with Deleviive Recurvy
trwmportrd to and from die minion were also recorded. lids excerpt is taken fromtlw recording of
(raveling from the siathm.
EFTA00176116
12/11/2007 11:38 FAX l 007/099
KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP
R. Alexander Acosta
December 11.2007
Page 4
A: I ih-huh. 1 had been IS for like S months. nine months already. My birthday is in
June so I had been 18 tbr a while. (Sworn Statement of 2/3/OS).
• Angela Thomas:
0: Okay. How old are you now? You're -
A: I'm 20
Q: You're 20. So a couple months ago you would have been what. I')'?
A: t Ih-huh.
Q: Alright. So July. August you would have been 19. 20. On the verge of 20?
A: Uh-huh. (Sworn Statement of 1 I/4/05)
We believe that other witnesses have similarly told the HD that Mr. Epstein attempted to
monitor the ages of the masseuses who cunt to his home. We thriller believe than these
transcripts would show that the federal interest in prosecuting Mr. Epstein fur paradigmatic stale
offenses was far less compelling than the inaccurate police reports suggest.
D. Detective Recarev Made Crucial Misstatements in the Police Report and
Probable Cause Affidavits.
We have reviewed the sworn and recorded witness statements of many of the individuals
who were interviewed (conducted in person or by telephone) as well as a number of the
controlled calls cited in the Police Report. 'lime Idler time, we found statements in the Police
Report attributed to statements made in the sworn recordings that either simply were not said. or
in some instances, are flatly contradicted. by the witness who purportedly made the statement. Tn
fact. they often stand in stark contrast to representations made by Detective Reearey in both the
official Police Report and in affidavits signed by him under oath . We highlight the most
significant ones identified to date:
• LTA DidNol Report that Epstein 'fold Her to Lie About her Age
The Probable Cause Affidavit indicates that during her sworn stall "Dail advised
that during her frequent visits Epstein asked fur her real age. stated she was
sixteen [and that Epstein advised her not to tell anyone her real age.- Arrest
Probable Cause Affidavit al I I. That statement appears nowhere in hall's sworn
statement.
EFTA00176117
12/11/2007 11:38 FAX a 008/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
R. Alexander Acosta
December I 1. 2007
Page 5
• Hall Did Nat State that Epstein Phutographed Her I laving Sex
Detective Recarey also reports Hall as claiming that "Epstein would photograph
Marcinkova and her naked and having sex and proudly tf the photographs
within the home." Id. at 12. Again, this statement is not in swam statement.
To the contrary, the transcript reflects that hall stated: "I was just like. it was me
standing in front of a big white marble bathtub ... in the guest bathroom in his master
suite. And It wasn't like was you know spreading my legs or anything for the
camera, I was like. I was standing up. I think I Wits standing up and I just like. it was
me kind of looking over my shoulder kinds smiling. and that was that." Sworn
Statement of 10/11/05 at 35. 2
• Pentek Said Epstein Did Nat Touch I ler Inappropriately
Detective Recarey recounts that rayth Penick advised that "Epstein grabbed her
bullocks and pulled her close to him." Probable Cause Affidavit at 6. See also. Police
Report (10/07/05) at 30 (same). Pentek never made this slulethent, to rael. when
Detective Recarey asked. "He did not touch you inappropriately!" Penick responded.
"No." Sworn Statement of 10/04/05 at I I.
• MOB Esposito Was Nut Sixteen When 8110 First When to Epstein's Home.
Detective Reality states: also stated she was sixteen years old when she
first went to Epstein's house". Incident Report al 52. However.
affirmatively states that she was seventeen when she first went to Epstein's home:
"Q: Okay. How old were you when you first went there? A: Seventeen. Q:
Seventeen. A: And I was 17 the last time I went them too. 1 turned 18 this past
June". Sworn Statement of 11/14/05.
• Shasdy Velaseo Told Detective Keeney that Epstein DidNut Take out Sex Toys.
The Pmbable Cause Affidavit indicates that Shandy Velasco stated, "Epstein would
use a massager/vibrator, which she described as white in color and a large head.
Epstein would nib the vibrator/massager on her vaginal area as he would masturbate."
Probable Cause Affidavit at 14: see also Police Report (1I/10/05) at 49 ("Epstein
would use a massager/vibrator, which she described as white in color with a large
head, on herr). This statement appears nowhere in the transcript of Velascols sworn
.m.•••••
2 I Intl was interviewed by Detective Itecarey twice, once by telephone, and once in Nrson. The portions of the
Police Roan at which we refer speci0cally cite the inperson interview of l kill as the source for the
inronnation reported. We have reviewed the recording of that interview and base doe comparison on that
review. We have never heard a recording (tribe telephone interview.
EFTA00176118
12/11/2007 11:39 FAX 009/099
ICIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
It. Alexander Acosta
December I I. 2007
Page 6
statement. In Nei when Detective Recarey asked whether Mr. Epstein had "ever
take(n1 out any toys," Vclascn responded. "No." Sworn Statement of 11/08/05 ut I7.
• Did Not Recall Mr. Epstein Masturbating
Detective Recarey recounts that "advised she was sure (Mr. Epstein]
was masturbating based on his hand movements going up and down on his penis
area." Probable Cause Affidavit at B. See also Police Report (10/07/05) at 35 (same).
Detective Recarey's account is in direct contradiction to Laduke's true
statement, speci tient ly:
Q: Okay did he ever take off — did he ever touch himself?
A: don't think so.
Q: No. Did he ever masturbate himself in front of you?
A: I don't remember him doing that. Ile might have hut I really don't
remember. (Sworn Statement of I (/05/05 at 7).
• Juan Alessi Staled that OthiOne Girl Looked Young
Police Report at 57: "Alessi slated that towards the end of his employment. the
masseuses were younger and younger". However, he said no such thing:
Q: Did they seem young to you?
A. No. sir. Mostly no. We saw one or two young ones in the last year. Before that.
it was all adults . I remcmhcr one girl was young. We never asked how old she
was. It was not in my job . . . But I imagine she was 16, IT'. (Sworn Statement of
11/21/05)
C. Detective Recarey Made Material Omissions in the Police Report.
In addition to the misstatements in the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit as to
the evidentiary record, there were also material omissions. both of facts known to the PBPD and
also of filets not known to the PBPD, though known by the State Attorney. In the latter instance.
the lack of knowledge was the result or the PLIPD's relbsal to receive the exculpatory evidence.
in fuel. they refused to attend a meeting called by the State Attorney specifically to provide the
relevant evidence. Thus, the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit only affix a skewed
view of the facts material to this matter. Examples follow.
1. The Video Surveillance Equipment Located in Mr. Epstein's Office and Garage.
Both the Police Report (at 43) and the Probable Cause Affidavit (at I make
EFTA00176119
12/11/2007 11:39 FAX 0010/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
R. Alexander Acosta
December I I, 2007
l'age 7
particular mention of the "discovery" of video surveillance equipment (or "covert
cameras" as they are called) in Epstein's garage and library/office. Inclusion of this
inthrination insinuates a link between the equipment and the events al issue: in the
Probable Cause Affidavit Detective Recarcy states, "on the first floor of the !Epstein'
residence I [Detective Reetueyl found two covert cameras hidden within clocks. Onc
was located in the garage and the other located in the library area on a shellbehind
Epstein's desk . ' • computer's hard drive was reviewed which showed several
images of I laley and other witnesses that have been interviewed. All of these
images appeared to come from the camera positioned behind Epstein's desk". See
Probable Cause Affidavit at IR.
Clearly omitted from both the Police Report and the Probable Cause Affidavit is the
fact that the PIM and specifically Detective Rocarey. knew about the cameras since
they were installed in 2003. with the help of the PAPA, to address the theft of cash
from Epstein's home. This fact is detailed in a Palm Reach Police Report prepared in
October 2003 detailing the thefts, the installation of video equipment, the video
recording capturing Juan Alessi (Mr. Epstein's then house manager) "red handed-.
and the incriminating statements made by Alessi when he was confronted at the lime.
See Alessi Police Report at 5. 8. The contemporaneous police report confirms the
fact that the video footage was turned over to Detective Rectircy himself.
2. Polygraph examination atuasprt. On May 2. 2006. Mr. Epstein submitted to a
polygraph examination by M Slattery. a highly respected polygraph examiner
who is regularly used by the State Attorney. The examination was done at a time
when we were told that the sole focus of the investigation was the conduct with
Gonralez.
Mr. Epstein was asked (a) whether he had "se tad contact with n: (11)
i • ••• anyway threatenledl : (c) whether Inc was told by
"that she was IR years old"; an ( ) whether he "believed
i was IR years old". As set lbrth in the Report of the examination, the term
"sexual contact" was given an extremely broad meaning in order to capture any
inappropriate conduct that could have occurred:I The results of the examination
confirmed thati.to such conduct occurred: (ii) Mr. Epstein never threatened
: (iii) told Mr. Epstein she was IR years old: and (iv) Mr. Epstein
believed Gonzalez was IR years old.
4 the eetelehle included: - sexual intereolusc. oral sex acts (penis in muds ur Ohne!' on vagina). linger penetration
ore he vagina. linger penetration of the anus. touching or its: vagina for sexual gratification purposes, touching
orate penis for sexual gratiliCalion purposes. masturbation by or to another. touching or nthhing, of the breasts.
or any other physical contact involving sexual thoughts multur desires with another person-.
EFTA00176120
12/11/2007 11:39 FAX 0011/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
K. Alexander Acosta
December 11. 2007
Page 8
3. Broken "Sex Top" in Mr. Epstein's Trash. The Police Report details the police
finding in Mr. Epstein's trash what is described as broken pieces of a "sex toy" and
that this "discovery" purportedly corroborated witness statements. Omitted from both
the Police Report and the Probable Cause Affidavit is the find that during the course
Of executing the search warrant in Epstein's home, the police discovered the other
piece of that key "sex toy" and realized it was in litct only the broken handle of a
salad server. Though "sex toys" play a prominent role in the Police Report and
Probable Cause Affidavit. the Police Report was never amended to rellect the
discovery of this new and highly relevant evidence.
4. Failure to Consider Evcidpatory or Impeaching Evidence. Other exculpatory and
impeaching evidence known by the PBPD was omitted from the Police Report and
Probable Cause Affidavit hy. in our view, manipulating the date the investigation was
allegedly closed. According to the Police Report (at 85). Detective Recurey
"explained Ito MA Relnhlavek) that the PBPD had concluded its CUM in December
of 2005". That assertion, which is false. conveniently resulted in the omission °fall
information adduced subsequent to that date. Thus, though the Police Report in fact
contains information obtained Mier December 2005. the POP!) purported to justify its
refusal to consider, or even to include, in the Police Report, the Probable Cause
Affidavit or what it released to the public, all the exculpatory and evidence
impeaching the witnesses submitted on behalf of Mr. Epstein. most of which was
provided Idler December 2005. That evidence is listed below.
5. Unreported Criminal Histories and Mental /tenth Problems of the Witnesses
Itidied on in the Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit. Evidence obtained
concerning the wimesses relied upon to support the Probable Cause Affidavit casts
significant doubt on whether these witnesses are sufficiently credible to support a
finding at' probable cause, let alone to sustain what would he the prosecution's burden
of proof at a trial.4 Though such evidence was submitted to the MD. none of it was
included in the Police Report or the Probable Cause Affidavit.
• Juan Alessi: While the Police Report (at 57) and the Probable Cause Affidavit (at
21) contain assertions by Alessi, which allegedly support bringing a criminal charge.
the evidence revealing Alessi's evident mental instability; prior criminal conduct
against Epstein: and bias towards Epstein is notably omitted. As detailed above, in
2003, Alessi was filmed taking money from Epstein's home. After being caught on
videotape unlawfully entering Epstein's home and stealing cash from a briefcase,
While we have never intended to and do not here seek lu gratuitously cue aspersions on any or the whin:saw. in
previously asking the Stale and now asking you to evaluate the strength of this case. we have been constrained
to point out the fact that the alleged victims chose to present themselves to the world through MySpace profiles
with self selected monikers such us "Pimp Juice" and " Flicking or with nude photos.
EFTA00176121
12/11/2007 11:40 FAX 012/090
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
R. Alexander Acosta
December I I, 2007
Page9
Alessi admitted to the PON) that he entered the house unlawlially on numerous
occasions, stealing cash and attempting to steal lipstein's licensed handgun to commit
suicide. Although this information was known by Detective Recurey at the time the
Police Report and Probable Cause Affidavit were prepared. and is clearly material to
any determination of credibility. it was omitted.
was the source or the vast majority or the serious
allegations made a mast Epst-. While the Police Report and Probable Cause
Affidavit rely on numerous assertions, there are two significant pmblems with
that reliance. First there is no mention or certain critical admissions made by Hall
during her interview, as well as on her MySpace wehpage (discovered by defense
investigators and turned over to the State Attorney). Second. all but omitted limn the
Police Report is any reference to the facts known about her by the PBPD. specifically,
that at the lime I tall was making these assertions die had been arrested hp the PAPA
and was heing prosecutedfor possession of maryuana and drug paraphernalia. We
take each in mm.
• Admits Voluntary Sexual Coughed With Epstein.
Refuses to ise ose the &position of the Monies She Earned, and
Lies About Being "Given" a Car by Emidi): Detective Recarcy
failed to include in the Police Report admission that on one
occasion she engaged in sexual conduct wit Epstein's girlfriend us
her hirthda "gilt" to Epstein. Nor does Detective Recurey include the
fact that flatly refused to discuss with him the disposition of the
thousands o dollars she said she was given by Epstein. or that she
falsely claimed that she did not use drugs. despite her My-Space entries
in which she exclaims "I can't wait to buy some weedmunn.
Detective Recarey was aware the car had been rented. not purchased.
and only it was only leased on a monthly basis for two months. While
familial claim that she was given a car appears in the Police
Report, it is never corrected.
• Was Arrestedfor Possession qfMarijuana and Drug
trap reran :a. As noted. on September I I. 2005, I tall was arrested
for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. In response to
this arrest "came forward' (as the Probable Cause Affidavit
implies at claiming she had knowledge of "sexual activity
taking place" nt Epstein's residence and misconduct by Epstein. (this
"coming forward- as no where in the Police Report) Thus, it
becomes clear that assertions of misconduct by Epstein were
motivated by a desire to avoid the repercussions or her own criminal
conduct. which should have been taken into account when assessing
her credibility as a witness.
EFTA00176122
12/11/2007 11:40 FAX la 013/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
R. Alexander Acosta
December 11. 2007
Page 10
• ■ Steals From a Secret Store. An
investigation by private investigators wor •e ! • lefense revealed
that in lute 2005 ((all was employed at a Secret store in
Florida. Three days after her liana case was terminated. I rail was
caught by a store manager as attempted to leave the store with
merchandise in her purse, the security tag still attached. Seeing the
manager, Hall claimed "someone is (tying to set me up". Following an
internal investigation. which disclosed additional thells from both the
store and a customer, she was fired. In a recorded interview. I loll
admitted to stealing and asserted that her reason for doing so was that
"she was not getting paid enough". This information and supporting
documentation was presented to the PBPD. but was never included in
the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit.
• flail Lies on MySpace About Secret tore
Term:nation. Also uncovered • '• ise investigators is
dissembling version of the Secret debacle on cr
"MySpace" webpage. Them Hall gmouneed that she ". . tbrgot to
let everyone know quit my job at M. They said they suspected me
of 'causing losses to their company' which by the way is bullshit. I
was 'by the book' on EVERY]] IING!!! . . . I got so fed up in that
office that I handed the toss Prevention lady back my keys and
walked out". This intommtion and supporting documentation was
provided by the defense to the PBPD, but was not included in the
Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit.
• Lies on I Secret Jab Application.
Additional in tuition on MySpace webpage casts further
doubt on her credibility. For mpl she to having engaged in
a fraudulent scheme to get hired by Secret, explaining. "Oh,
it wa so funny I used [my boyfriend' as one of my relCrenees for
my Secret job and the lady called me back and told me thin
William Tucker gave me such an outstanding reference that she did
not need to call anyone else hack.. . . he got me the job! Just like that .
.. I lied and said he was the old stock manager at flolister she bought
it. . ." 'Ibis infiumation and supporting documentation was provided
by the defense to the PRPD, but was not included in the Police Report
or Probable Cause Affidavit.
• Alexandra ■ ltoastc About Her Marijuana Use. Also on her
MySpace webpage can be found I lall's admissions of purciwi g and
using marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia. Specifically, states
she "can't wait to buy some weed!!! . . . 1 can't wait!!! . .. (Hold on:
EFTA00176123
12/11/2007 11:40 FAX 014/089
el
KIRKLAND & ELLIS I_LP
R. Alexander Acosta
December I I, 2007
Page 11
let me say that again) I can't wait to buy some weed!!!. . . I also want
to get a vaporizer so I can smoke in my room because apparently there
are 'mires' everywhere", also posted a photograph of a marijuana
cigarette and labeled it gl viat heaven looks like to me". This
information and supporting documentation was provided by the
defense to the MOD, was not included in the Police Report or
Probable Cause Affidavit (although there is both a fleeting reference in ..7
the Police Report to ))all's use of marijuana with her boyfriend (at 47)
and in the Probable Cause Affidavit to I lull's marijuana arrest (at 10-
1 I )).
• MI While the Police Re ri and Probable Cause Affidavit contain
numerous assertions intended to negate taped admission that she clear)
told lipstein she was IR, omitted from t lese moments is reference to
MySpace webpage. presented to the State Attorney's Office, where . in no comet: ion
to this case, she allirtnialvely represented to the world that she was 18. thereby
corroborating her lie to Epstein. Also omitted is any reference to her long history of
run-ins with law entbreement. Among those arc multiple runaway complaints by her
parents and her assignment to a special high school for drug abusers.
• Gonzakc's AlySpare Webpage Slates She Drinks, Uses Drugs, Gets
haa Trouble, Has Denten Someone Up, Shoplifts. Has Lost her
Virginity, Earns $250,000 and Higher, and Contains Naked and
Provocative Photographs. The first image seen on
MySpaee webpage, the photo chose to represent ler. Is I at
ola naked woman provocatively.mg on the beach. The illuminating
webpage also contains assertions that of all her body pans.
she - love(s1 her ass". sic no s to excess. uses drugs, "gets into
trouble", has beaten someone up. has shoplifted - lots", "already lost"
her virginity, and earns "S250,000 and higher". As with the other
impeaching information. this material. vital to determining credibility,
was provided by the defense to the PRPD but was never included in
the Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit.
• GonzalersPS Record — Drags, Alcohol, R lug Away Front
Home. has a history of running away/turning up missing
from her pamnts various homes; of using drugs and alcohol; and of
associating with individuals of questionable judgment. For example, a
Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office Report details how only two days
after she returned to Florida to live with her lather, on March 31, 2006.
police were called to the home in response to her father's report that
she and her twin sister were missing. 'Ile Police Report describes her
as "under the influence of a narcotic as 'she' could barely stand up.
EFTA00176124
12/11/2007 11:01 FAX el015/099
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
It. Alexander Acosta
December I I, 2007
Page I 2
filed eyes wen: blood [heti pupils were diluted [sic'". It
flintier documents that and her sister had stayed out all night
returned home by a -• nig dealer. This event coincided with
having been found at an "inappropriate locution" by Georgia
police in response to a call about Gonzalez's disappearance. Although
this information. material to determining credibility. was provided by
the defense and known to the PBPD. it was never included in the
Police Report or Probable Cause Affidavit.
• Daniel While the Po rt nd Probable Cause
vit rely on statements of father. Daniel
. his federal hank fraud conviction. which defense
investigators discovered and turned over t t PBPD during the
course of the investigation, was omitted. . served 21 months
in federal prison for his offense.
• Erika : While the Police I 'rod m able Cause
Affidavit rely on statements
stepmother. omitted is Erika state conviction ler identity
fraud. This information. uncovered by defense investigators, was also
turned over to the PBPD during the course of the investigation.
O. In Licht Of The Compromised Nature Of The Evidence, A Fulsome Review
Should Re Conducted
These tainted and inaccurate reports compromised the federal investigation.' As you may
know, the PBPD took the unprecedented and highly unethical step of releasing these reports to
the media as well. These reports spread across the Internet, and were undoubtedly read by the
other individuals who were later interviewed by the FBI for giving Mr. Epstein massages. As we
have shown, these reports contain multiple fabrications, omissions. and outright misstatements of
rod. Moreover, the evidence and the allegations were undeniably misrepresented to the 1:14I.
with no inclusion or the evidence exposing the deficiencies or the "proof' and the exculpatory
evidence upon which the State relied. Furthermore, it should be noted that many of these same
individuals were also interviewed by the FBI after their state interviews but prior to Mr.
Epstein's counsel providing the government with the transcripts or the recorded interviews. The
Although we twee liven informed that the FBI identified and then interviewed additiontil potential witnesses, many
Of their diseoveries are believed to have emanated from message pads containing amino information that were
seinal from Mr Lipsiein's home pursuant ton state search wnrrani that was deeply and constitutionally flawed by
Keen ey's misontements and omissions as
DataSet-10
Unknown
37 pages
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 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 TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES, and RESPONSES TO
1st and 2nd PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND INCORPORATED
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, serves
his response and supporting memorandum of law to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel
Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents, and Incorporated
Memorandum of Law In Support, dated March 2, 2009. In support of Defendant's
assertion of constitutional privileges and objections to discovery and in response to
Plaintiff's motion to compel, Defendant states:
Introduction
As discussed more fully herein, Defendant has asserted constitutional based
protections to the discovery requests propounded by Plaintiff. In addition and in
alternative to the constitutional protections afforded under the Fifth, Fourteenth and
Sixth Amendments, Defendant also asserted other factual/legal objections and
privileges. However, as will be evident in reviewing Plaintiffs discovery requests and
Defendant's response, the constitutional assertions are required to be determined first
so that Defendant does not risk rendering these protections meaningless in attempting
EFTA00222075
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 2 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 2
to assert and argue the factual basis for the additional objections and privileges. See
part ILA. herein.
I. Defendant EPSTEIN has properly asserted his constitutional claims of
privilege and effective assistance of counsel, as guaranteed under the Fifth,
Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, to each of
the specified interrogatories and production requests.
In accordance with applicable law, EPSTEIN has properly asserted his
claims of privilege and effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth,
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution to each of the
interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff in her first set of Interrogatories and first
production request. See Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel for Defendant's
Response and Objections to Plaintiff's Amended Interrogatories, and Exhibit B to
Plaintiffs motion for production requests and Defendant's responses thereto. Contrary
to Plaintiffs assertion that Defendant made an improper "blanket objection," Defendant
examined and responded to each of the discovery requests and raised constitutional
privileges, along with other alternative objections applicable to the specific interrogatory
or production request. See Exhibit A and B to Plaintiffs motion. (Although Defendant
sets forth each of the interrogatories and requests below, because Plaintiff has attached
the responses as Exhibits to her motion, Defendant does not retype the responses in
their entirety herein).
The circumstances of this case (and the others) are such that not only does
Defendant EPSTEIN face allegations of sexual misconduct with and abuse, exploitation,
and sexual battery of alleged minors in this and other civil actions, but he also faces
criminal prosecution based on the same factual allegations. The Plaintiffs attorney
represents Jane Doe Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, in civil actions against EPSTEIN filed in
EFTA00222076
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 3 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 3
this Court. (There are additional state and federal civil actions against EPSTEIN). In
this and the other civil actions, the Plaintiffs reference federal and state criminal statutes
in an attempt to allege claims ranging from sexual battery to intentional infliction of
emotional distress, to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422, entitled "Coercion and enticement,
contained in Title 18, "Crimes and Criminal Procedure," Part I — "Crimes,' Chapter 117 —
"Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity and Related Crimes'," to a cause of action
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 — which creates a civil remedy for personal injuries where
a plaintiff can show a violation of specified statutory criminal statues. Plaintiff is
attempting to allege a violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422. See endnote 1 for current text of 18
U.S.C. §2422, along with pre-2006 amended text. See Exhibit B hereto - copy of
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff also alleges that "Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant" was a part of
"Epstein's plan and scheme (which) reflected a particular pattern and method" in the
alleged recruiting of girl's to come to EPSTEIN's Palm Beach mansion and give him
"massages" in exchange for money. 2nd Am. Complaint, ¶11-12. According to the
complaint allegations — "Upon information and belief Epstein has a sexual preference
and obsession for underage minor girls." ¶8. "Sarah Kellen" would "bring the girl up a
flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table ... ." The girl would be
alone with EPSTEIN. EPSTEIN would "lie naked on the massage table, and direct the
girl to remove her clothes." "Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious
and sexual acts, including masturbation and touching the girl's vagina." 2nd Am.
Complaint, ¶11, Exhibit B. Plaintiff alleges that "in 2004-2005," she, "then
approximately 16 years old, fell into Epstein's trap and became one of his victims." ¶8.
EFTA00222077
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 4 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 4
Plaintiff alleges that Epstein "sexually assaulted" her. ¶12 Plaintiff also alleges that
EPSTEIN "maintains his principal home in New York and also owns residences in New
Mexico, St. Thomas and Palm Beach, FL." Id, ¶7. "Upon information and belief, Jeffrey
Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted girls in Florida, New York and on his
private island, known as Little St. James, in St. Thomas." Id, ¶9. The nature of the
allegations is (obviously) serious.
The threat of criminal prosecution is real and present as EPSTEIN remains under
the scrutiny of the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) which, as explained more
fully herein, possesses the power to move forward with its criminal prosecution against
EPSTEIN. EPSTEIN entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with United
States Attorney General's Office for the Federal Southern District of Florida. The terms
and conditions of the NPA also entailed EPSTEIN entering into a Plea Agreement with
the State Attorney's Office, Palm Beach County, State of Florida. By its terms, the NPA
took effect on June 30, 2008. As well, pursuant to the NPA, any criminal prosecution
against EPSTEIN is deferred as long as the terms and conditions of the NPA are
fulfilled by EPSTEIN. Criminal matters against EPSTEIN remain ongoing until the NPA
expires by its terms in late 2010 and as long as the USAO determines that EPSTEIN
has complied with those terms and conditions. The threat of criminal prosecution
against EPSTEIN by the USAO continues presently and through late 2010. The USAO
possesses the right to declare that the agreement has been breached, give EPSTEIN's
counsel notice, and attempt to move forward with the prosecution. In other words, the
fact that there exists a NPA does not mean that EPSTEIN is free from future criminal
prosecution. In fact, the threat of prosecution is real, substantial, and present. See
EFTA00222078
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 5 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 5
attached Exhibit "A", Affidavit of Jack A. Goldberger, a board certified criminal defense
attorney who has in the past and is currently representing EPSTEIN.
A.
Memorandum of Law Supporting Application of Constitutional Privileges
The Fifth Amendment provides in relevant part that "No person ... shall be
compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." Hoffman v. United
States 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.Ct. 814 (1951), citing Feldman v. United States 1944,
322 U.S. 487, 489, 64 S.Ct. 1082, 1083, 88 L.Ed. 1408." The Fifth Amendment's
privilege against self-incrimination is "accorded liberal construction in favor of the right it
was intended to secure." "The immediate and potential evils of compulsory self-
disclosure transcend any difficulties that the exercise of the privilege may impose on
society in the detection and prosecution of a crime." Id, at 490; and In re Keller
Financial Svcs. of Fla., Inc., 259 B.R. 391, 399 (M.D. Fla. 2000). The privilege not only
extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a criminal
statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence
needed to prosecute the claimant for a crime. Id, citing Blau v. United States, 1950, 340
U.S. 159, 71 S.Ct. 223. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination
"permits a person not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding,
civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future
criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985), citing
Lefkowitz v. Turlev 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner,
532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Ct. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth Amendment privilege is also available
to those who claim innocence. One of the Fifth Amendment's "basic functions ... is to
protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous
EFTA00222079
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 6 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 6
circumstances."). Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's
Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment - "Mt would be incongruous to have different standards
determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution,
depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); Kastigar v.
U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 444-45, 92 S.Ct. 1653 (1972)(The Fifth Amendment privilege "can
be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory
or adjudicatory; and it protects against any disclosures which the witness reasonably
believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that
might be so used. This Court has been zealous to safeguard the values which underlie
the privilege." (Emphasis added)).
As EPSTEIN is here, "the claimant must be 'confronted by substantial and 'real,'
and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." See generally, United
States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128, 100 S.Ct. 948, 956, 63 L.Ed.2d 250 (1980)).
See also, United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S.
925, 100 S.Ct. 3018, 65 L.Ed.2d 1117 (1980)(Information is protected by the privilege
not only if it would support a criminal conviction, but even if "the responses would
merely 'provide a lead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate.").
The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the scope of the Fifth
Amendment Privilege also encompasses the circumstance where "the act of producing
documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled
testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043
(2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence
EFTA00222080
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 7 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 7
Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (6th Ed.). In explaining
the application of the privilege, the Supreme Court stated:
We have held that "the act of production" itself may implicitly communicate
"statements of fact." By "producing documents in compliance with a
subpoena, the witness would admit that the papers existed, were in his
possession or control, and were authentic."FIS Moreover, as was true in this
case, when the custodian of documents responds to a subpoena, he may be
compelled to take the witness stand and answer questions designed to
determine whether he has produced everything demanded by the subpoena.
Fr120
The answers to those questions, as well as the act of production itself,
may certainly communicate information about the existence, custody, and
authenticity of the documents. Whether the constitutional privilege protects
the answers to such questions, or protects the act of production itself, is a
question that is distinct from the question whether the unprotected contents of
the documents themselves are incriminating.
FN19. "The issue presented in those cases was whether the act of
producing subpoenaed documents, not itself the making of a statement,
might nonetheless have some protected testimonial aspects. The Court
concluded that the act of production could constitute protected testimonial
communication because it might entail implicit statements of fact: by
producing documents in compliance with a subpoena, the witness would
admit that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, and were
authentic. United States v. Doe, 465 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct.
123T Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id., at 428, 432, 96
S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, 1487
U.S..'! at 104, 108 S.Ct. 2284; J id.,1 at 122, 108 S.Ct. 2284 (dissenting
opinion). Thus, the Court made clear that the Fifth Amendment privilege
against self-incrimination applies to acts that imply assertions of fact."...
An examination of the Court's application of these principles in other cases
indicates the Court's recognition that, in order to be testimonial, an
accused's communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual
assertion or disclose information. Only then is a person compelled to be a
'witness' against himself." Doe v. United States, 487 U.S., at 209-210, 108
S.Ct. 2341 (footnote omitted).
FN20. See App. 62-70. Thus, for example, after respondent had been duly
sworn by the grand jury foreman, the prosecutor called his attention to
paragraph A of the Subpoena Rider (reproduced in the Appendix, infra, at
2048-2049) and asked whether he had produced "all those documents."
App. 65.
Finally, the phrase "in any criminal case" in the text of the Fifth Amendment
might have been read to limit its coverage to compelled testimony that is used
against the defendant in the trial itself. It has, however, long been settled that
EFTA00222081
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 8 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 8
its protection encompasses compelled statements that lead to the discovery of
incriminating evidence even though the statements themselves are not
incriminating and are not introduced into evidence. Thus, a half century ago
we held that a trial judge had erroneously rejected a defendant's claim of
privilege on the ground that his answer to the pending question would not itself
constitute evidence of the charged offense. As we explained:
"The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in
themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise
embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to
prosecute the claimant for a federal crime." Hoffman v. United States, 341
U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951).
Compelled testimony that communicates information that may "lead to
incriminating evidence" is privileged even if the information itself is not
inculpatory. Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 208, n. 6, 108 S.Ct. 2341,
101 L.Ed.2d 184 (1988). It's the Fifth Amendment's protection against the
prosecutor's use of incriminating information derived directly or indirectly from
the compelled testimony of the respondent that is of primary relevance in this
case.
In summarizing its holding regarding the application of the Fifth Amendment
Privilege to a production request, the Hubbell Court left "no doubt that the constitutional
privilege against self incrimination protects" not only "the target of a grand jury
investigation from being compelled to answer questions designed to elicit information
about the existence of sources of potentially incriminating evidence," but the privilege
also "has the same application to the testimonial aspect of a response to a subpoena
seeking discovery of those sources." At 43, and 2047.
The privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted during discovery when a
litigant has "reasonable grounds to believe that the response would furnish a link in the
chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against a litigant." A witness, including a
civil defendant, is entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege whenever there is a
realistic possibility that the answer to a question could be used in anyway to convict the
witness of a crime or could aid in the development of other incriminating evidence that
EFTA00222082
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 9 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 9
can be used at trial. Id; Pillsbury Company v. Conbov 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608
(1983). See also, Hubbell, supra, quoted above as to what is encompassed by the
phrase "in any criminal case" contained in the Fifth Amendment.
As noted, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is broad.
Hoffman; In re Keller Financial Svcs., supra. To deny a witness the right to invoke the
privilege, the judge must be perfectly clear, from a careful consideration of all the
circumstances in the case, that the witness is mistaken, and that the answers cannot
possibly have such tendency to incriminate. Id, at 488, 399. Recognizing the breadth
and magnitude of this constitutional privilege, the United States Supreme Court in
discussing how a court is to analyze the application of the privilege stated —
... It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified Ropers v. United
States, 1951, 340 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 438, and to require him to answer if 'it
clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.' Temple v. Commonwealth,
1880, 75 Va. 892, 899. However, if the witness, upon interposing his claim,
were required to prove the hazard in the sense in which a claim is usually
required to be established in court, he would be compelled to surrender the
very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee. To sustain the
privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the
setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an
explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because
injurious disclosure could result. The trial judge in appraising the claim 'must
be governed as much by his personal perception of the peculiarities of the
case as by the facts actually in evidence.'
Hoffman supra at 486-487.
Hoffman and its progeny establish that "in view of the liberal construction of the
provision [protecting against self-incrimination], after a witness has asserted the
privilege, he should be compelled to provide the requested information only if it "clearly
appears" to the court that the witness was mistaken in his invocation of the privilege."
(Emphasis added). In re Keller Financial Svcs., supra at 399, citing Hoffman, at 486.
EFTA00222083
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 10 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 10
Finally, in order to preserve the privilege against self-incrimination, as EPSTEIN
has properly done is response to each discovery request, the privilege must be asserted
or one risks the loss or waiver of this liberty ensuring protection. See generally, U.S. v.
White, 846 F.2d 678, 690 (11th Cir. 1988)("First, it ignores the settled principle which
requires a witness to assert his Fifth Amendment rights. A witness who testifies at any
proceeding, instead of asserting his Fifth Amendment rights, loses the privilege. ... A
civil deponent cannot choose to answer questions with the expectation of later asserting
the Fifth Amendment.").
In the instant case, the privilege applies as Defendant EPSTEIN "has reasonable
cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer." The risk of incrimination resulting
from answering each of the interrogatories and requests for production is "substantial
and real" and "not trifling or imaginary haphazards of communication." See generally,
In re Keller Financial Svcs. supra at 400. Based on the nature of Plaintiffs claims,
along with the ongoing scrutiny of the USAO in the criminal matters, EPSTEIN has
"reasonable grounds to believe that his responses to the discovery would furnish a link
in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against him. The very nature of the
claims brought and the discovery being sought by Plaintiff in order to attempt to prove
those claims establish a realistic possibility that the answer to an interrogatory or
production request could be used in a type of way to convict EPSTEIN of a crime or aid
in the development of other incriminating evidence that can be used at a criminal trial.
Under the circumstances of this case, the threat of criminal prosecution is not
imaginary. See Exhibits A and B to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. This Court is well
aware of the "peculiarities" of this action as it has before it other civil actions against
EFTA00222084
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 11 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 11
EPSTEIN, all alleging similar underlying facts of sexual misconduct involving minors.
The allegations of this action and others entail EPSTEIN allegedly "recruiting" Plaintiff
and other minors to come to his home in Palm Beach to give him massages which
allegedly became sexually inappropriate in nature, and EPSTEIN in turn would pay the
minors. See Chapter 110 of Title 18, United States Code Annotated; and "predicate
acts" specified in 18 U.S.C. §2255.
Also applicable in upholding the assertion of Defendant's Fifth Amendment
privilege is the guarantee of effective assistance of counsel by the Sixth Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution. See Yarborough v. Gentry, 124 S.Ct. 1, 540 U.S. 1, 157 L.Ed.2d
1 (2003)(Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants effective assistance of
counsel.), on remand 381 F.3d 1219. The United States Constitutional guarantees are
applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Obviously, EPSTEIN's
assertion of his constitutional privileges and protections is on the advice of counsel.
EPSTEIN continues to face criminal prosecution by the USAO until the expiration of the
NPA; under the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of counsel, he is entitled
to follow the recommended advice of his criminal defense attorney. See Exhibit A
hereto. A review of the complaint allegations and the circumstances of this case —
including multiple civil actions attempting to allege claims based upon sexual abuse and
exploitation of minors, parallel criminal matter under which EPSTEIN continues to face
prosecution for crimes based on the same allegations until the terms of the NPA have
expired and been fulfilled as determined by the USAO - establish that EPSTEIN's
invocation of his constitutional protections of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth
EFTA00222085
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 12 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 12
Amendments be upheld; otherwise such constitutional protections would be rendered
meaningless.
Circuit Court, State of Florida, recently entered order upholding assertion of Fifth
Amendment and constitutional based protections in response to discovery.
Further requiring the sustaining of Defendant's assertions of his
constitutional protections, the 15th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County,
State of Florida, recently entered an order sustaining Defendant's assertion of his 5th, 6th
and 14th Amendment privileges and protections in response to Plaintiff A.C.'s request
for production in A.C. v. Epstein Case No. 502008CA025129X)=MB Al. The Order,
dated February 23, 2009, and the production requests and Defendant's responses are
attached hereto as Composite Exhibit C. (Compare Requests for Production Nos. 1,
2, 3, and 4 in the instant case with the production request no. 1 in Composite Exhibit C
hereto; compare requests nos. 20 and 21 in this case with nos. 2 and 3 in Comp. Ex. C;
and compare information sought in interrogatories nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 15 in this case
with information sought in request nos. 2 and 3 in Comp. Ex. C).
B. Even if the Court were to agree with Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant has
asserted a "blank privilege" under the Fifth Amendment, under the facts and
circumstances of this case, such assertion would be proper.
Plaintiff claims that Defendant has improperly asserted a "blanket privilege" to the
discovery. As stated above, Defendant disagrees. Defendant evaluated each and
every discovery request in asserting applicable constitutional privileges and other
objections. The facts and circumstances of this case are such that in evaluating each of
the interrogatories and production requests on an individual basis, the constitutional
protections asserted by Defendant apply to each. The Court will note that the additional
objections raised are also tailored to each interrogatory and production request. Even
EFTA00222086
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 13 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 13
the Court's analysis of the discovery will be on an individualized basis. However, simply
for the sake of argument, as to Plaintiffs assertion that Defendant has made a "blanket
assertion," under the facts and circumstances of this case, such an assertion is proper.
In allowing a blanket assertion, Courts have recognized a narrow exception to the
rule that the assertion of the privilege must be to each specific question. The Courts,
including this Circuit, acknowledged "an exception ... (where,) based on its knowledge
of the case and of the testimony expected from the witness, (the trial court) can
conclude that the witness could 'legitimately refuse to answer essentially all relevant
questions." United States v. Goodwin 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. Fla. 1980)); United
States v. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365, 367-68 (9th Cir. 1981). This exception is narrow and is
applicable where the trial judge has "some special or extensive knowledge of the case
that allows evaluation of the claimed Fifth Amendment privilege even in the absence of
specific questions to the witness." Id. See also U.S. v. Smith, 157 Fed.Appx. 215,
218 (11th Cir. Ga. 2005)("A district court must make a particularized inquiry, evaluating
whether the privilege applies with respect to each specific area that the questioning
party wishes to explore. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d at 1049. The witness may be totally
excused from testifying only if the court finds that he could legitimately refuse to answer
essentially all relevant questions. United States v. Goodwin 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th
Cir.1980).").
See also State of Washington v. DelGado, 18 P.3d 1141 (Wa. Ct. of App. Div. 2
2001)("There is a narrow exception allowing a blanket privilege where "based on its
knowledge of the case and of the testimony expected of the witness, [the trial court] can
conclude that the witness could legitimately refuse to answer essentially all relevant
EFTA00222087
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 14 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 14
questions. ... For the exception to apply, the trial judge must have 'some special or
extensive knowledge of the case that allows evaluation of the claimed ... privilege even
in absence of specific questions to the witness.'").
C. Plaintiffs statement of the law in section IV, (pp. 6-7), of her motion is
incorrect under the circumstances. Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, an adverse
Inference from invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil case is not always
permitted.
In section IV, (pp. 6-7), of Plaintiffs motion to compel, Plaintiffs general claim
that an adverse interest based on a defendant's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a
civil case may be made is improper under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Plaintiff is correct as to the general rule that "adverse inferences may be drawn in the
civil context when Defendants invoke the privilege in refusing to testify in response to
probative evidence offered against them." F.T.C. v. Transnet Wireless Corp., 506
F.Supp.2d 1247, 1252, fn. 4 (S.D.Fla.,2007), citing Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S.
314, 328, 119 S.Ct. 1307, 143 L.Ed.2d 424 (1999). However, there exists a well
recognized exception to the general rule — "Courts may not draw adverse inferences,
however, if it is the sole basis for Plaintiffs prima facie case, or will cause the "automatic
entry of summary judgment." See generally, F.T.C. supra, at fn.4, citing United States
v. Premises Located at Route 13 946 F.2d 749, 756 (11th Cir.1991) (citing Pervis v.
State Farm and Cas. Co., 901 F.2d 944, 948 (11th Cir.1990)). See also S.E.C. v. Keith
Group of Companies, Inc. 1998 WL 1670405 (S.D. Fla. 1998)("When a party is a
defendant in both a civil and criminal case and is forced to choose between waiving his
Fifth Amendment privilege ... or losing the civil case on summary judgment, an
exception to the general rule ... applies. In such a situation, the Court may not make an
adverse inference about the party's refusal to testify.") Accordingly, Defendant's
EFTA00222088
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 15 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 15
assertion that an adverse interest "under the circumstances would unconstitutionally
burden my exercise of my constitutional rights, would be unreasonable, and would
therefore violate the constitution," is both proper and required to be upheld at this time.
D. Plaintiffs Amended First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant
Listed below is each of the interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff. As noted
above, Defendant responded to each interrogatory separately in raising his
constitutional privileges and guarantees, and, in the alternative, raising specific other
applicable objections to each. See Exhibit A to Plaintiffs motion to compel.
No. 1. Identify all employees who performed work of services inside the Palm Beach
Residence.
No. 2. Identify all Employees not identified in response to interrogatory no. 1 who at any time
came to Defendant's Palm Beach Residence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No. 9. (Not at issue.)' 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.
' Fn. 4 of Plaintiff's motion states — "Plaintiff does not challenge at this time Defendant's Fifth
Amendment privilege in response to interrogatory no. 9, which seeks information of Defendant's
sexual aids."
EFTA00222089
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 16 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 16
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.
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.
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.
No. 13. List the names and addresses of all persons who are believed or known by you,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(Emphasis added).
Defendant will address interrogatories nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17,
above, as the analysis as to the application of the constitutional privileges and
protections is straightforward. Nos. 3 through 6 ask Defendant to identify anyone who
gave "massages" or were asked to give "massages" to him. Clearly, any answer to
EFTA00222090
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 17 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 17
these interrogatories, involve compelled statements that would furnish a link in the chain
of evidence needed to prosecute the Defendant in future criminal proceedings or even
support a criminal conviction. These interrogatories seek the precise information that
the USAO investigated and continues to scrutinize. See Exhibit A hereto.
Any answer to no. 15, which seeks information "relating to alleged sexual abuse
or misconduct on a minor" on its face would also lead to incriminating evidence
protected under the Fifth Amendment privilege. The same is true for no. 16 — which
seeks "facts upon which you intend to rely for each denial of a pleading allegation and
for each affirmative defense," and Nos. 13, 14, and 17 which seek to compel EPSTEIN
to list any persons or witnesses in 13 "having any knowledge concerning any of the
issues in this lawsuit," in 14 having "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 in 17 "whom you have obtained or
requested a written, transcribed or recorded statement relating to any issue in these
cases." In answering no. 16, Defendant would be compelled to testify as to his version
of the facts, and, in asserting affirmative defenses, he would further be compelled to
admit Plaintiffs version of the facts. In listing such person or witness, the Defendant is
further compelled to describe the subject matter, nature of the items and or statements
of such witness or person. Again, the allegations of this action are such that in
answering these interrogatories, Defendant is being compelled to incriminate himself in
crimes. By answering the specified interrogatories Defendant is being compelled to
testify as to the issues and facts not only asserted in Plaintiffs complaint, but also to
facts which present a real and substantial danger of self-incrimination. Again, the
EFTA00222091
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 18 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 18
information sought all relate to claims of sexual abuse and exploitation of a minor. (See
Chapter 110 of Title 18, United States Code Annotated; and "predicate acts" specified in
18 U.S.C. §2255, and 18 U.S.C. §2422).
Any answer to nos. 1 and 2 would also be compelled testimony that "tends to
show that the witness himself (EPSTEIN) committed a crime" based on the nature of the
allegations. As noted above, Plaintiff alleges that at least one of EPSTEIN's
employees, Sarah Kellen, was part of the scheme or plan of sexual misconduct,
exploitation and abuse of the "girls." No. 1 is asking for any employee who performed
work or services, and no. 2 is asking EPSTEIN to testify as to anyone who came to his
Palm Beach mansion. Such compelled testimony is protected under the Fifth
Amendment as the answers "would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to
prosecute the claimant for a crime." Answering the questions as to who came and went
from his Palm Beach mansion would provide a "'lead or clue' to evidence having a
tendency to incriminate." See also 18 U.S.C. 2422, Coercion and Enticement. This
analysis also applies to interrogatory nos. 7 and 9 which seek, respectively, "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," and "all persons who provide
transportation services to Jeffrey Epstein, whether as employees or independent
contractors, including without limitation, chauffeurs and aircraft crew." Plaintiff alleges a
time period of 2004-05 as to when the alleged to when the sexual misconduct, including
sexual assault, of a minor took place in Palm Beach, Florida. Plaintiff also alleges that
EPSTEIN engaged in the same "scheme and plan" against minor girls at his other
places of residence. Again, EPSTEIN's answer as to his travels to and from Florida,
EFTA00222092
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 19 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 19
and within Florida, would be a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict him of a
crime.
The privilege against self-incrimination also applies to Nos. 11 and 12 which
seek, respectively, "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," and "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." Again, such compelled testimony would self-incriminate
EPSTEIN based on the elements required to establish a violation of the criminal statute
18 U.S.C. §2422. Such information would be a link in the chain of evidence needed to
prosecute EPSTEIN for a crime.
Finally, the compelled testimony sought in no. 8 - "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,"
could also lead to a link in the chain of evidence to convict EPSTEIN based on the
allegations which are criminal in nature — sexual misconduct with minors, and a plan
and scheme to "recruit" such minors to fulfill Epstein's "sexual preference and
obsession." See ¶8 of complaint — "Upon information and belief Epstein has a sexual
preference and obsession for underage minor girls."
As explained in Hoffman EPSTEIN is not required to "prove the hazard in the
sense in which a claim is usually required to be established in court." The United States
Supreme Court recognized placing such a requirement on a person asserting his
EFTA00222093
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 20 of 37
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein
Page 20
constitutional privilege is in effect tantamount compelling him "to surrender the very
protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee." Under the facts and
circumstances of this case, it is evident from the implications of each of the
interrogatories or an explanation of why they can't be answered "might be dangerous
because injurious disclosure might result." Id.
Accordingly, under applicable law and the facts of this case, Defendant's
assertion of the constitutional privilege and guarantee under the 5th, Oh and 14th
Amendments of the United States Constitution are required to be upheld.
E. Plaintiff's First Production Request To Defendant
The constitutional protections are equally applicable to the request for production
propounded on Defendant by Plaintiff. See Exhibit B to Plaintiffs motion to compel.
The requests are as follows -
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
DataSet-10
Unknown
57 pages
CONFIDENTIAL SUBMISSION TO
CHILD EXPLOITATION AND OBSCENITY SECTION
RE JEFFREY EPSTEIN
EFTA01080591
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
AND AOILIARD PARTNUSIIIIS
Kenneth W. Starr
To
Facsimile:
ksta cam
www.klrkland.com
March 28, 2008
BY RAND DELIVERY
Honorable Sigal P. Mandelker
De ut Assistant Attorney General
Dear Ms. Mandelker and Mr. Oosterbaan:
Enclosed, please fmd our submission as discussed at the meeting. This submission
includes a brief executive summary; an analysis of the relevant federal statutes and their
application to the facts in this matter; a discussion of the Petite Policy, and an appendix, which
includes significant documentary evidence including testimony by witnesses that was obtained
after the Deferred Prosecution Agreement was signed. For the reasons we discuss in the
submission, we do not believe this is an appropriate case for federal prosecution.
I want to call your attention to the recent statements made under oath by some of the
alleged victims. As we have previously explained, the United States Attorney's Office has
refused to disclose the identities of the alleged victims, and First Assistant United States
Attorney has made the unusual demand that Mr. Epstein's defense team make no
effort to discover their identities or contact any of them. See November 5, 2007 Letter from J.
M g Exhibit 1. However, due to a procedure available under state law, and folloilite
wave of recent lawsuits that have been filed against Mr. Epstein (ironically by Mr.
former law partner), we have been able to engage in discovery and take sworn statements from
several of the alleged victims. These statements, which would never have been obtained under
the First Assistant's directive, are extremely important for two reasons. First, because this new
testimony post-dates the state investigation, all discussions regarding plea negotiations, the
execution of the federal Deferred Prosecution Agreement, and the drafting of any prosecution
memos, no federal or state prosecutor has ever reviewed this material.' Second, and without
I However, in connection with Ms. statement, which was taken by the FBI, she may have been
debriefed by either the FBI or a federal prosecutor.
Chicago Hong Kong London Munich New York San Francisco Washington.
EFTA01080592
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
March 28, 2008
Page 2
exception, the new evidence strongly supports the conclusion that this is not a case offederal
concern.
This recent testimony can be found in its entirety. See Exhibits 2-7. This evidence
clearly calls into serious doubt the notion that the alleged conduct constitutes a federal crime.
For example, one of the alleged victims adamantly states that she "never had sex with [Mr.
Epstein]" and that she did not know him and had absolutely no contact with him—be it through
Internet chatrooms, email, or phone—prior to her coming to his home. (deposition)
at 24, 30, Exhibit 3. The same woman stated that she was not persuaded, induced, enticed or
coerced by anyone to engage in any sexual activity. Id. at 31. This woman, who was described
as the "lynchpin" of the federal prosecution particularly due to her age at the time of the alleged
conduct, expressly admits to lying to Mr. Epstein about her age. Id. at 37. Another alleged
victim made similarly exculpatory statements to the FBI. She stated that not only did she always
make sure she had a fake ID with her and lie to Mr. Epstein by telling him she was 18 but that
she also had conversations with other women in which these women hoped that didn't
find out [their] age[s]." Tr. at 45, Exhibit 2. When this alleged "victim" was asked if Mr.
Epstein ever "pulled [her closer to him in a sexual way," she responded, "I wish. No, no, never,
ever, ever, no, never. is an awesome man, no." Id. at 21. Yet another alleged victim
stated that Mr. Epstein "never touched [her] physic," and that all she did was "massage[ ] his
back, his chest and his thighs and that was it." Tr. at 12-13, Exhibit 4. Finally, another
alleged victim stated in no unclear terms that there was never any discussion over the phone
about her coming over to Mr. Epstein's home to en a e in sexual activity: "The only thing that
ever occurred on any of these phone calls [with or another assistant was, `Are you
willing to come over,' or, `Would you like to come over and give a massage." Tr. at 15,
Exhibit 5A. And as each of these women confirmed, this woman stated: "[Mr. Epstein] never
tried to force me to do anything." Id. at 12.
We believe that these transcripts are of critical importance because they clearly indicate
that not only did no intercourse take place with these women, but that any sexual activity that
took place was unplanned and consensual. Furthermore, these women corroborate the fact that
there was no pattern of luring or enticing these women to do more than give a massage, and that
any activity that went beyond the massage was by no means forced upon them. We would urge
you to review these particular sworn statements in their entirety both because this is new
evidence that post-dates the Deferred Prosecution Agreement and because it discloses critical
information about the true facts and circumstances of this case.
Importantly, at your request, we have limited the scope of the submission. Thus, this
submission does not focus extensively on our concerns relating to the principles of federalism,
abuse of power, prosecutorial misconduct, or many of the improper tactics used by federal
EFTA01080593
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
March 28, 2008
Page 3
prosecutors? Notwithstanding that, we think it important that you be made aware of the types of
actions that have caused us serious concern, and have influenced the process and distorted the
facts:
• Federal involvement in a state criminal prosecution without any communication with
state authorities;
• The issuance of subpoenas and letters requesting documents whose subject matter had
no connection to the conduct at issue including medical records and tax returns (for
example, subpoenas were issued to an agent of Mr. Epstein's counsel without
following guidelines provided in the United States Attorneys' Manual which ask for:
"All documents and information related to the nature of the relationship between (the
agent] and Mr. Epstein, including all third party contacts had on behalf of Mr.
Epstein all agreements not limited to, retainer agreements; employment agreements;
billing statements . .. telephone logs . . . appointment calendars/datebooks . ..");
• The use of threats of expanding the investigation to include money transmittin• . .
g and
money laundering, though none of the mandatory prerequisites could be described
(for example, the federal prosecutors referred to the following litany of federal
statutes in a letter to a potential grand jury witness as the universe of relevant federal
violations: "including but not limited to, possible violations of Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 2, 371, 1512, 1591, 1952, 1956, 1960, 2421, 2422, and 2423.") nor
was any specific unlawful activity, which is the predicate act for a money laundering
charge, ever identified;
• The nomination of an individual closely associated with one of the Assistant United
States Attorneys involved in this case for the highly lucrative position of independent
attorney demanded for the alleged victims;
• The insistence on a victims notification letter, which invited all alleged victims to
make sworn statements at Mr. Epstein's state sentence even though there was no basis
for inviting alleged victims of federal crimes to make statements in a state
proceeding;
2 The relevant documents for each of these propositions are available for your review upon request.
EFTA01080594
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
March 28, 2008
Page 4
• Clear violations of ethics rules by discussing specific details of the case and
negotiations with a New York Times Reporter, and
• The relationship between the law firm representing several of the alleged victims in
civil suits against Mr. Epstein and the First Assistant United States Attorney from the
Southern District of Florida.
We believe these concerns are significant and that they should have bearing on the
reliability and integrity of the investigation. We respectfully reserve our right to raise our
concerns in the future.
Furthermore, our submission is guided by an overarching principle: Federal authority
should not be stretched to override the considered judgment of a duly elected state official who,
guided by a highly professional prosecutorial staff, carefully assessed the actual facts (not a
sensationalized, fictionalized version of them), applicable state law, and fundamental principles
of fair treatment as embodied in the practical experience of that highly respected State's
Attorney's Office. A career state prosecutor looked the witnesses in the eye, evaluated the facts,
and took this matter before a state grand jury, and thereafter invoked the judicial process of the
State of Florida to bring about a just and fair resolution consistent with that Office's experience.
The record is clear and undisputed: This matter began as a state matter in Palm Beach County; it
was treated with professionalism and thoroughly investigated by the State's Attorney's Office;
then, in an affront to principles of comity in our federal republic, disgruntled local police
officials seeking to subvert the thoughtful judgment of state officials aired their disagreement
publicly to an eager press and summoned the FBI. This should not be. But that is the undisputed
genesis of a federal investigation that, in view of Congress' intent embodied in the statutes that
we will closely analyze in this submission, should never have been commenced.
Federal authorities in this case have brushed aside federalism-inspired methods of
professional conduct, stretched both law and facts, and emphasized the importance of financial
gain -- not only to individual women but to private attorneys who stood to benefit financially
from the federal authorities' involvement. The result has been that many of the witnesses who
swore under oath that there was no inappropriate conduct whatever (much less a crime), have
now been inspired by the beguiling prospect of financial gain and have, filed civil complaints
demanding $50 million each. This should not be. There is no justification for stretching federal
law, stretching the facts, and then bringing the power of the federal government to tear apart
what the State of Florida has determined is a just and fair resolution -- namely, a felony
conviction under criminal statutes duly passed by the Florida legislature. That considered
judgment—grounded in law and in principles of fair treatment of all persons, regardless of the
wealth or station in life—should be respected in the finest traditions of federalism and comity.
EFTA01080595
KIRKl_AND & ELLIS LLP
March 28, 2008
Page 5
We hope that your office and the Department will consider all of the evidence included in
the submission and exhibits we put forth today, as well as the areas of concerns on which we did
not focus extensively, because as we believe that all aspects of reconsideration in this case fall
squarely within the overseeing responsibilities of the Department of Justice. We greatly
appreciate your time and consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Kenneth W. Starr
EFTA01080596
SUBMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN THE
MATTER OF E. EPSTEIN
This submission addresses (i) whether existing federal statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(b),
1591 and 2423, apply to the conduct at issue; and (ii) whether the circumstances of this case
overcome the significant hurdles established by the Department's Petite Policy against dual and
successive prosecution. As explained below, existing statutes do not apply to Mr. Epstein's
conduct, and the Petite Policy's bar against successive prosecution has not been surmounted.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Jeffrey Epstein, a successful self-made businessman with no prior criminal history,
should not be prosecuted federally for conduct that amounts to, at most, the solicitation of
prostitution. To prosecute Mr. Epstein federally based upon the facts presented by this case
would be an unprecedented exercise of federal power and use of federal resources. It would
effectively represent the adherence to a novel legal theory never before sanctioned by federal
law. As described more fully below, Mr. Epstein did not engage in any conduct covered by any
of the three federal criminal statutes being considered for federal prosecution, namely 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2422(b), 2423(b), and 1591. Moreover, the new evidence obtained through the use of a State
discovery statute and in connection with the civil lawsuits that have been filed confirms that
federal involvement in this matter is inappropriate. We highlight this evidence for you because it
has never been reviewed by the federal or state prosecutors overseeing this matter. See Exhibits
2-7.
Mr. Epstein has had a home in Palm Beach, Florida for the past 20 years. As a routine
part of Mr. Epstein's activities while at his residence in Florida, which included attending to
business, socializing, visiting his elderly mother, and attending to doctors' appointments, Mr.
Epstein often had masseuses come to his residence to provide him massages following his
exercise. Mr. Epstein did not personally schedule the massage appointments or communicate
with the women who provided massages to him, either over the telephone or otherwise, prior to
the time they arrived at his residence. Rather, all these appointments were scheduled by his
assistants. Often it was the masseuse who contacted Mr. Epstein's assistant inquiring about Mr.
Epstein's availability rather than vice versa, the message pads reflecting incoming calls to Mr.
Epstein's house, which were improperly seized during the execution of a State search warrant
(actions for which the State later apologized) are replete with requests by masseuses to return to
Mr. Epstein's residence to provide massages.' See Message Book Entries, Exhibit 8.
The majority of the massages were just that—massages and nothing else. Mr. Epstein
would routinely be on the telephone conducting business while he received his massage. At
times, the masseuses would be topless, and some sexual activity might occur, primarily self-
We are including some but not all examples of this pattern of behavior but are open to sharing more examples
won request
EFTA01080597
Page 2
masturbation on the part of Mr. Epstein. On other occasions, no sexual activity would occur at
all. There was no particular pattern or practice as to which masseuse would be scheduled ort any
particular day—if at all—or whether any sexual activity might occur. Indeed, many times Mr.
Epstein would not know which masseuse his assistants had scheduled until that individual
showed up. See =Toll Records, Exhibit 9. Mr. Epstein requested the individual be over
the age of 18. The vast majority of the masseuses were in fact 18 or over, and the testimony
available to us in this case demonstrates that those under the a e of 18 have admitted to
s
I iii matically
T lying to Mr. E ein about their age. See at 38-39, Exhibit 10;
r. at 9, Exhibit 4- r. at 6, 8, 22, 45, Exhibit 2, Tr. 13, Exhibit 11;
Tr. at 12, Exhibit 12; Tr. at 5, Exhibit 13; arr. at 1415, Exhibit 14.
In light of these facts, the case against Mr. Epstein lacks any of the hallmarks that typify
federal prosecution under the identified statutes. Not only did all of the conduct take place in
Mr. Epstein's home in Palm Beach, there was no commercial for-profit enterprise; no interstate
component; no use by Mr. Epstein of an instrumentality of interstate commerce; no violence; no
force; no alcohol; no drugs; and no child pornography.
An objective review of the facts should make clear that this is not a federal case. Indeed,
Mr. Epstein's counsel have reviewed every case involving 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(b), 2423(b), and
1591 and have not found a single case suggesting that federal prosecution can be brought under
these facts. Instead, as the State Attorney's Office determined, and still believes, Mr. Epstein
was a customer, a "John," for whom prosecutions are best left to the State to address. Notably,
the Department of Justice has repeatedly recognized the predominant State role in such
prosecutions, even as recently as November 9, 2007.2
Besides lacking the facts necessary to support a federal prosecution, the federal
prosecutors responsible for this case have employed a process rife with prosecutorial
misconduct, abuse and profound lack of respect for the State Attorneys of Florida. First,
following the imposition of a State charge against Mr. Epstein, the local police chief, who
disagreed with the decision of both the State Attorney's Office and the Grand Jury, took actions
that undermined the credibility of everything that followed in the federal investigation; he
referred the matter to the FBI and at the same time released the police reports containing raw
allegations to the press. Significantly, these reports, when compared to the actual transcripts
of sworn taped interviews of witnesses, are demonstrably inaccurate. They contain both
glaring misquotes and omissions offact
2 See November 9, 2007 DOJ letter to the Judiciary, Exhibit 15 ("[P]rostitution-related offenses have historically
been prosecuted at the state or local level. This allocation between state and Federal enforcement authority does
not imply that these crimes are less serious, but rather reflects important structural allocations of responsibility
between state and Federal governments . . . the Department is not aware of any reasons why state and local
authorities are not currently able to pursue prostitution-related crimes such that Federal jurisdiction is
necessary.").
EFTA01080598
Page 3
The intentional release of the police reports to the press not only shaped how the
prosecutors in the United States Attorney's Office viewed the case, but more importantly,
influenced many of the witnesses who would later be interviewed by the FBI. Indeed, multiple
civil lawsuits have recently been filed Mr. Epstein (many by the former partner of First
Assistant United States Attorney MIE; and those suits contain word-for-word
narratives taken directly from the publicly released police report, narratives that are factually
inaccurate when compared to the actual transcripts.
Many of Mr. Epstein's alleged victims and other witnesses have recently given sworn
statements establishing that (i) Mr. Epstein was only interested in women over 18; (ii) they lied
and told Mr. Epstein they were 18 when they were not; (iii) there was no interstate travel; (iv)
there was no use of the Internet or telephone to communicate with Mr. Epstein; (v) there was no
inducement over any instrumentality of interstate commerce; (vi) there was no force or coercion
by anyone. See Herman Public Statement, Exhibit 16.
The facts—as opposed to the deeply flawed press reports—were carefully assessed by
experienced State prosecutors who aggressively enforce State criminal laws. Following an
extensive 15-month State investigation by the Florida State Attorney's Office in Palm Beach, led
by the chief of the Sex Crimes Division, Mr. Epstein was indicted by a State Grand fury on a
single felony count of solicitation of prostitution. During the investigation, the State prosecutor
exhaustively reviewed the evidence, met face-to-face with many of the alleged victims,
considered their credibility—or lack thereof—and considered the extent of exculpatory evidence,
including a psychosexual evaluation of Mr. Epstein and a polygraph examination demonstrating
that Mr. Epstein genuinely believed at the time of the alleged conduct that the State's key
witness was over the age of 18. Then, after months of negotiations, the State reached what it
believed was an appropriate resolution of the case. Importantly, this resolution was consistent
with that of cases involving other defendants who had engaged in similar conduct.
Implementation of the State resolution of the case was held in abeyance, however, due to the
unexpected commencement of the successive federal criminal investigation.
After many months of attempting, to no avail, to fit this case into its vision of what it
initially believed (based upon the inaccurate police reports) to be a wide-spread commercial
trafficking ring targeting minors, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
Florida agreed to defer prosecution to the State. Notably, however, the Agreement also
contained many unorthodox requirements, including requiring Mr. Epstein not only to blindly
agree to pay an undisclosed list of alleged victims a minimum of $150,000 each, but also to pay
for an attorney to represent such unidentified victims if any chose to bring civil litigation
against him. The United States Attorney's Office also represented at the time the Agreement
was signed that it had identified, on a list, up to 40 alleged minor victims of federal crimes, and
to bolster the claim that they were minors suggested that they required a guardian ad litem. This
is all untrue. In fact, it was later firmly established that only one girl on the list was still a minor,
and the other women on the list, after examining their testimony, could in no way qualify as
"victims." There is now also a sworn statement to the effect that the FBI attempted to persuade
EFTA01080599
Page 4
at least one of these women that she was in fact a "victim" of federal crimes when she herself
edly confirmed that she was not. See, e.g.
rig Tr. at 9-12, Exhibit 5A; =Tr. at 7, Exhibit 5B.
Tr. at 10, 19-22, 31, 57-58, Exhibit 2;
Beyond that, because the United States Attorney's Office had not, and still has not, made
any effort to coordinate with its State counterpart about the case. Thus, the Deferred Prosecution
Agreement put Mr. Epstein in the extraordinary position of requiring him, not the federal
authorities, to convince the State Attorney's Office to impose a more severe charge and
punishment than the State Attorney's Office (and the State grand jury) had determined to be
appropriate.
As a result, Mr. Epstein, and the United States Attorney's Office—which has insisted that
its prosecutorial decision in this case was mandated by policy decisions in Washington, D.C.—
has now asked the Department of Justice to review whether a federal prosecution is warranted.
Respectfully, a federal prosecution of this matter should be declined because (1) it is not
supported by the facts; (2) it would require an unprecedented interpretation of the federal statutes
in question; (3) it would unnecessarily result in an expansion of federal powers into an area
properly reserved to the States; and (4) it would require an unequal application of the law.
We urge the Department of Justice to review the transcript and then all of
the new evidence in this case. On February 20, 2008, —the alleged victim upon
which this entire investigation was initially launched3—was deposed. Under oath, Ms.
reiterated that she "swore on her mother's grave" that she and Mr. Epstein did not engage in sex
of any kind. See (Deposition) at 24, Exhibit 3. She also reaffirmed that she lied to
Mr. Epstein about her age because it was her understandiri,f she was not over 18, Mr.
Epstein would not let her in his house. See id. at 32. Ms. further repeatedly explained
that prior to the time she went to Mr. Epstein's house (she went there only once), nobody ever
tried to coerce her to engage in sexual activity with Mr. Epstein, not over the Internet, not over
the telephone, not at all, period. See id at 31. No federal prosecution should proceed on these
facts.
Among the attachments appended to this submission are several new depositions and
sworn statements of persons whom the prosecutors have alleged are "victims" of Mr. Epstein's
conduct, as well as copies of recent civil lawsuits, several for $50 million dollars, brought by the
victim/witness-claimants. Each of these attachments (even the allegations in the civil complaints
3 The Policetgirt indicates that the originating complainants in the investigation were and
father and stepmother. See Police Report at 11, Exhibit 17. Nollihe Police Report or
the search warrant affidavit) omits are the fact that both Mr. and Mrs. have prior federal
felony fraud convictions.
EFTA01080600
Page 5
themselves) negates thepredicates for a federal prosecution.° The consistent representations of
witnesses such as a and the
la and
civil complainants and their attorneys, confirm the following key points: first, there was no
telephonic communication that met the requirements of § 2422(b); second, the underage women
who visited Mr. Epstein lied about their age in order to gain admittance into his home; third, any
women who brought their underage friends to Mr. Epstein counseled them to lie about their ages
in order to gain admittance into his home; fourth, there was no routine or habit suggesting an
intent to transform a massage into an illegal sexual act. Finally, there was no force, coercion,
fraud, violence, drugs, or even alcohol present in connection with Mr. Epstein's encounters with
these women.
Mr. Epstein's counsel believe that further depositions, sworn statements, or interviews
would, if permitted to occur prior to a final determination on the viability of any federal
prosecution, would establish that the facts simply do not fit within any proper construction of any
of the federal criminal statutes under consideration.
4 First Assistant United States Attorney sought to preclude Mr. F. stein or his agents from
communicating with the alleged "victims. See November 5, 2007 Letter from .1. Exhibit 1. Due to
established state procedures and following the initiation of the civil lawsuits, Mr. Epstein's counsel was able
to
take limited discovery of certain women in this matter.
EFTA01080601
Page 6
I. BACKGROUND
This case involves conduct that, although prosecutable under State law (and indeed is
being prosecuted under State law), will not support a federal conviction. Thefacts simply do not
meet the elements of any federal offense, and in particular not those required for a
prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 24220). This case is not about using the telephone, the Internet,
or any other facility of interstate commerce to lure, induce, entice, persuade or coerce
unsuspecting women to Mr. Epstein's residence to engage in unlawful sexual activity. It is not
about traveling in interstate commerce to engage in unlawful sexual activity. Nor does it involve
a commercial sex enterprise. It is certainly not the quintessential sting case involving children.
Instead, this case is about fiends who spoke to friends (in person) and brought them to
Mr. Epstein's residence to perform massages on Mr. Epstein. To the extent sexual activity
prohibited by State law occurred (which we deny), any inducement, enticement, and/or
persuasion necessary to make out a violation of federal law took place during a face-to-face
encounter and involved spur-of-the-moment decisions. It is, furthermore, a case about young
women who sought to provide Mr. Epstein massages either by calling his assistants or through
fiends who they knew could introduce them to Mr. Epstein. It is a case where, in instance after
instance, these young women have testified that they lied or otherwise concealed their ages and
counseled others to do the same. It is a case in which Mr. Epstein and his assistants routinely
were unaware of the identities of many of these young women before they arrived and, in fact,
some visited Mr. Epstein's home only once. Finally, it is a case about purely local activity,
involving local actors, and affecting local interests and thus, should be handled by local
authorities.
The suggestion that calling to schedule massage appointments satisfies the elements of an
offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2242 is belied by the evidence in this case, which establishes (i) that
most of the masseuses were over 18, and that they were scheduled depending on their
availability, and not on any instructions from Mr. Epstein either as to a particular young woman
or a particular set of qualifications (e.g., underage); (ii) Mr. Epstein would not have known at the
time the phone call was made that any particular masseuse was being scheduled and therefore
that any underage masseuse was being scheduled; (iii) Mr. Epstein's "directive" to all the women
was to refer only other young women who were at least 18 years of age; (iv) Mr. Epstein would
not know the identities of the masseuses until after they were scheduled and in many instances
until they arrived, and, therefore, under no circumstances would he have known their ages; (v)
there were many occasions where the masseuse who was called and agreed to visit (or herself
called and asked to visit) was not the young woman who actually provided the massage, but
rather, a friend; (vi) decisions as to the type of conduct Mr. Epstein would request that the young
women engage in during any particular massage were made in the massage room, while the
massage was being conducted, in a face-to-face encounter—never in advance and never over the
phone; and (vii) many appointments resulted in massages that did not involve unlawful sexual
activity, where the masseuses were of age or no sexual activity was engaged in at all, or even no
massages were performed. These facts are repeatedly corroborated by the actual transcripts.
EFTA01080602
Page 7
Under such circumstances, it cannot be reasonably said that when Mr. Epstein purportedly
caused his assistants to arrange the massage appointments (directly or indirectly), he did so with
the intent to lure, induce, entice, persuade, or coerce unlawful sexual activity with minors.
Nor can it be said that the scheduling calls to "repeat" masseuses can be considered an
inducement based on claims that many of the young women previously engaged in unlawful
sexual activity with Mr. Epstein. Not every call, even to "repeat" masseuses, resulted
in
unlawful sexual activity. And as such, calling to schedule an appointment, without more, is not
tantamount to luring, inducing, enticing, persuading, or coercing someone to engage in such
activity. In this regard, to the extent a masseuse visited Mr. Epstein's home on more than one
occasion, there is no evidence that Mr. Epstein or the macs use knew what would occur during
the next massage, let alone that they would engage in unlawful sexual activity. As many stated
in sworn statements: during the course of a massage Mr. Epstein would at times request and/or
offer them additional money to engage in activities in which they had never previously engaged,
and some of them on some occasions would accept while others would not. See, e.g.,
'Fr. at 7, Exhibit 18; In Tr. 1 at 6, 7, 20, 21, 24-25, Exhibit 19; Tr. at 9, 18, Exhibit
20; Tr. at 4, Exhibit 13. Further, no two massages with the same woman could be
predicted to be the same. Thus, a call arranging a second or third visit from the same woman did
not ever mean, implicitly or explicitly, "more of the same".
Further, Mr. Epstein would not ask his assistants to schedule a particular masseuse for a
particular visit, let alone an underage masseuse; rather, he either asked his assistants to schedule
massages while he was in Palm Beach or, more regularly, the assistants took it upon themselves
to schedule the appointments. As a result, Mr. Epstein never knew who the individual would be
until after the massages were scheduled. He requested that the masseuses be at least 18 years of
wand expected them to be so and in fact most were). See Tr. at 12, Exhibit 12;
Tr. at 13, Exhibit 11; at 38-39, Exhibit 10; Tr. at 13, 22, Exhibit 2;
Tr. at 9, 22, 23, Exhibit 5A; and Tr. at 16-17, 18, Exhibit 4.
Specifically, there is no evidence that Mr. Epstein targeted minors as his assistants called
various masseusesS many of whom were clearly o
to
determine who was available and wished to come to Mr. Epstein's residence and provide a
massage. This fact is readily confirmed by the assistant's toll records. Mr. Epstein's assistant.
The decision of whom to call was not guided by instructions from Mr. Epstein, had nothing to do
with the age of the masseuse, nothing to do with the identity of the masseuse, and most
particularliiithing to do with the conduct that would occur (except, of course, a massage).
See, e.g., Tr. at 14-16. Exhibit 5A. The identity of the individual who ultimately provided
a massage was simply a matter of who expressed an interest, or was brought by a friend. In the
latter circumstance, neither Mr. Epstein nor his assistants knew who the masseuse would be,
other than by name (if even by name), let alone knew her age or the conduct in which she and
Mr. Epstein would ultimately engage on any particular occasion. See, e.g., . at 3, 19,
Exhibit 10; Tr. at 19-20, 23-24, Exhibit 2; see also Message Book Entries, Exhibit 8.
EFTA01080603
Page 8
In many cases, the young women themselves, without any prompting by Mr. Epstein or
his assistants, would leave a message seeking to visit Mr. Epstein at his home. See,
Tr. at 6, Exhibit 21; see also Message Book Entries, Exhibit 8. The proactive step of calling to
request to provide a massage is the antithesis of having been lured, induced, enticed, persuaded
or coerced. It demonstrates that these women sought to engage in the conduct alleged, even
assuming these women had been to the house before and engaged in such activities. Indeed, as
word of the opportunity s read amongst groups of friends, others sought out thaportunity
through friends. See Tr. at 15, Exhibit 14; Ti. at 45, 57, Exhibit 2; Tr. at 22,
Exhibit 19; Tr. at 13, Exhibit 22; Police Report at 24, Exhibit 17.
Finally, many massages involved conduct which even if engaged in with an underage
masseuse is not proscribed by federal law, either because the masseuses were of age and the calls
thus resulted in conduct between two consenting adults; or because conduct with underage
masseuses only involved topless massages, massages in undergarments, or naked massages.
These points are made over and over in the record before you, as the following sampling
illustrates:
the youngest woman involved in this case, and the catalyst for and
subject of the State prosecution, came to Mr. Epstein's house by way of Mille —the
same who swore under oath that Maiin wanted women between the ages of
18 and 20 to perform massages. It was who approached (in
person), not Mr. Epstein and not one of Mr. Epstein's assistants. And, it was who
spoke to Mr. Epstein's assistant to arrange an appointment for Ms. to orm a
massage. Neither Mr. Epstein nor his assistants were given information about
Nor were details of the massa c discussed over the phone. The appointment was simply
scheduled for a "friend" of presumably one who met the directive of being between 18
and 20 years of age, to provide Mr. Epstein with a massage. The only fact about Ms.
that Mr. Epstein or any assistant knew was her name (but not age), and they learned of her name
only after she first visited Mr. Epstein's home. Indeed, it was not until the State investigation
that it became known to Mr. Epstein that Ms. was underage. Ms.
constructed an elaborate back story to make her claim of being 18 credible and stuck to the story.
Ms. provided one massage and never returned to Mr. Epstein's residence. Thus, there
is no factual basis from which to claim that any federal law was broken here.
The relevant circumstances of encounters with Mr. Epstein are
different, but they lead to the same conclusion. A review of the phone Message Book Entries
obtained from Mr. Epstein's residence, as a result of seizure during the execution
of a questionable search warrant, is telling. Ms. like many of the other young women
involved in this case, actively sought to participate in the activities in which she engaged with
Mr. Epstein. She, like many others, did so by making unsolicited telephone calls to Mr.
Epstein's assistants looking for a chance to provide Mr. Epstein with a massage. Ms. MIE,
like others, left messages to the effect: "do you have work for me." Message Book Entries,
EFTA01080604
Page 9
Exhibit 8 (the following entries are also included: "was wondering if she can work. . ." and "I'd
like to work for him today"). Again, these facts do not support a federal case.
The conduct o is likewise illustrative of why this is not a federal case. In
the same way Ms. as referred to Mr. Epstein and brought to his home without having
been introduced or acquainted with Mr. E stein or his assistants in any manner, Ms. = too,
was referred by someone el who told her to lie to Mr. Epstein about r age,
which she did. =Tr. at 8-9 Exhibit 5A. Ms. = too, admits that she lied to Mr. Epstein
about her age. And, Ms. ME like so many others, called Mr. Epstein's residence seeking the
opportunity to provide Mr. Epstein a massage and leaving messages such as: "Please call her."
See Message Book Entries, Exhibit 8. FinailMs. =confirmed that there was absolutely no
element of coercion or force involved. Tr. at 9-10, 13, Exhibit 5A ("And like I said, he
also, you know, reassured if I wasn't comfortable with anything, then just tell him ...").
And, there are other young women who left similar messages (see Message Book Entries,
Exhibit 8); who were introduced to Mr. stein in a similar fashion see Tr. at 2-3,
Exhibit 23; Tr. at 3, Exhibit 19; =MR. at 4, 6, Exhibit 20; r. at 2, Exhibit
22; 3, Exhibit 11; MMTr. at 2-3, Exhibit 24; at 3, Exhibit 25; Tr.
at 3, Exhibit 13; air. at 3, Exhibit 26); who visited the residence only once and prior to
that were unknown to Mr. Epstein and his staff (see Tr. at 10, Exhibit 26; 1.Tr. at
11, Exhibit 11;al Tr. at 5-6, Exhibit 4; 1 Tr. at 7-8, Exhibit 27); who only ormed
laves (see Tr. at 4, 5, 6-7, 9, 11, Exhibit 13; NTL at 4, 5, 6, 10, Exhibit 24;
Tr. at 7, Exhibit 25); who never en aged in unlawful sexual activity or any sexual activity
for that matter (id. ienerak; Tr., Exhibit 20; INTr., Exhibit 27; Police Report at
78, Exhibit 17; Tr., Exhibit 24, Tr., Exhibit 26; and Tr., Exhibit 2); or,
who lied and counseled others to lie about their ages (see j at 38-39, Exhibit 10;
Tr. at 16, Exhibit 4; Tr. at 6, 8, 22, 45, • bit 2, Tr. 13, Exhibit 11;
Tr. at 12, Exhibit 12; iTr. at 14-15, Exhibit 14).
These facts do not support a federal conviction. There was no use of the phones to lure,
induce, entice, persuade or coerce another to engage in unlawful sexual activity. There was no
travel for the purpose of engaging in such activity. And, no commercial enterprise from which
Mr. Epstein derived a financial benefit. To conclude that merely scheduling a massage under
these circumstances, or returning an uninitiated call would support a federal prosecution under
§ 2242 stands in stark contrast to that which would support a conviction under the statute.
Nor do the facts of this case meet the requirements for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. §
2423(b). As discussed in greater detail below, the amount of time Mr. Epstein spent at his home
in Florida, and the extensive list of his Florida-based activities clearly undermines the contention
that he was a New York resident, government filing also corroborate this fact, and defeats the
notion that his purpose in traveling to Florida was to engage in illicit sexual conduct. On the
contrary, Mr. Epstein returned to Florida to engage in the routine activities of daily living.
EFTA01080605
Page 10
Finally, as will be explained, this case does not involve the quintessential conduct present
in prosecutions under the commercial sexual enterprise statue: there is no trafficking; no "force,
fraud or coercion"; no threats; no sexual servitude; no financial venture; no profit from a
financial venture; no forced work in the commercial sex industry; and no transporting of children
from underdeveloped countries to the United States or even within the United States across state
lines. Nor was there any conduct, whatsoever, which could be considered so extremely abusive
or violent, that an expansion of the statutes beyond their intended purpose would be warranted.
In short, the facts of this case fail to support a charge under any of the statutes identified.
At its worst, the conduct violates Florida State law and should be prosecuted as such—which it
has been, by the State authorities.
IL STATUTORY ANALYSIS
Federal prosecutors have identified three statutes under which Mr. Epstein might be
charged: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422, and 2423. None of these statutes applies to this matter.
Instead, as their plain text and history indicate, these statutes were designed to address problems
that are truly national and international in scope: human trafficking in § 1591; telephone or
Internet sexual predation in § 2422; and sex tourism in § 2423. Unlike the alleged conduct at
issue here, those problems unquestionably present multi -jurisdictional problems that States and
localities cannot confront effectively on their own. But Mr. Epstein's conduct was purely local
in nature, and the State of Florida and Palm Beach County are effectively prosecuting and
punishing that conduct.
Any attempt to federalize Mr. Epstein's case would require prosecutors to stretch these
statutes far beyond prior precedent—and well beyond their text and purposes. Indeed, Mr.
Epstein's alleged conduct involves quintessentially State and local offenses that never before
have been thought to fall within the purview of federal law. Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct was
non-violent—there was absolutely no force, coercion or fraud. Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct
occurred at his home—he did not travel to other locations (much less cross State lines) for
surreptitious meetings with known minors. Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct did not involve the use
or reliance on the Internet, email, or on faceless chat room meetings. No drugs were involved.
Mr. Epstein did not profit from any underage sex. And the young women's own testimony
confirms that their alleged meetings with Mr. Epstein lacked any semblance of violence or
predation. Most of the women were 18 or over, and those minors who have testified
acknowledge that they falsely represented themselves to be at least 18. Many of the young
women telephoned Mr. Epstein's residence and left messages on seized documents seeking to
give massages; some even came to Mr. Epstein's residence bringing friends or their boyfriends.
None was explicitly induced or persuaded to have illegal sex during phone conversations, as
federal law would require in order to convert this State-law solicitation case into a federal matter.
Finally, we have examined the hundreds of federal prosecutions under §§ 2422, 1591 and
2423. See Table of § 2422 Cases, Exhibit 28; Table of § 1591 Cases, Exhibit 29; Table of
§ 2423 Cases, Exhibit 30. Not one resembles this case; a federal prosecution on these alleged
EFTA01080606
Page 11
facts would be entirely unprecedented. There is simply no reason for the Department to strain
these statutes to achieve that result. This is a State and local matter, and State authorities have
actively, competently, and thoroughly addressed it.
A. 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)
Section 2422(b) reads as follows:
Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign
commerce ... knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual
who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual
activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts
to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than [5] years or
for life.
(Emphasis added.)5
By its plain text, the statute thus applies only to those who "use" the "means of interstate
... commerce" to "knowingly" convince a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct. That is
not wha
DataSet-10
Unknown
31 pages
Lee, Dexter (USAFLS)
From: (USAEO)
Sent: ust 29, 2011 1:58 PM
,A
To: (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No.
REC-11-4159)
Hello
Yes, that is correct. The investigations concerning Epstein, personally, arc the matters your office is recused.
The CVRA matters, while stemming from matters involving Epstein, arc matters brought be other individuals
and those matters may remain with your office.
Please let me know if you would like to further discuss or if you have any questions,
Thank you,
Office
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Washington. D.C. 20530
Phone:
Fax:
Email: att rAa
o., v
From: (USAFLS)
im
Sent: Mondaii A iiiust 29, 2011 12:26 PM
To: (USAEO)
Sub ea: RE: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159)
Hi
I hope the storms and Irene haven't affected you too badly. I wanted to make sure I am correct that this
recusal from any new criminal investigationSiEpSn
ir does not affect SDFL's handling of the CVRA civil case
pending before Judge Marra. I believe that had discussed the potential for recusal in the CVRA
matter with GC a while back and I am fairly certain that I discussed this with Jay earlier this year at the
EFTA00233998
NAC. In both instances, the resolution was that our Office could and should handle the CVRA matter. I
wanted to make sure that is still the case. Thanks
From: (USAEO)
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 20 •
r A. (USAFLS); (USAFLM)
eFerr (ODAG) (JMO ;
(USAFLM)•
(USAEO);
(USAF
(USAEO); (USAEO);
Subject: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159)
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Wifredo A. Ferrer
United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
Southern District of Florida
Robert E. O'Neill
United States Attorney
Middle District of Florida
Middle District of Florida
THROUGH:
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
FROM:
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
2
EFTA00233999
RE: Office-Wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida from the Investigation
and Potential Prosecution of Mr. Jeffery Epstein (GOD File No. REC-11-4159)
THIS IS FORMAL NOTICE that a, approved
the office-wide recusal of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) from
all matters, to include the investigation and potential prosecution, relating to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual
activities with minor females. The ADAG authorized this recusal in accordance with United States Attorney's
Manual (USAM) 3-2,170 and United States Attorney's Procedures (USAP) 3-2.170.001 based upon existing
conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest pertaining to the matter.
has assigned this matter to the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of
Florida and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 5I5(a), has directed and authorized United States Attorney Robert E.
O'Neill to conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and
proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
Florida is authorized by law to conduct regarding this matter. See USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(C)(2)(b).
Each office should communicate directly with each other concerning the investigations related to this matter in
accordance with the procedures outlined in USAP 70.001 6 C 2 3 The int of contact for the
Middle District of Florida is The 'nt of
contact for the Southern Dis • Florida is
who can be reached at
All Assistant United States Attorneys subsequently assigned to this matter must be appointed as Special
Attorneys in order to appear on behalf of the government in the Southern District of Florida. See USAM. 3-
2.300 and USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(C)(21(b). Please contact Nicole West, EOUSA Personnel Staff, Policy and
Special Programs Division, at (202) 252-5625 to obtain the appointments.
In accordance with USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(CX21(b)(3), any Special Attorney assigned the matter or case should
sign any pleadings or documents using the signature block of the Middle District of Florida, with the addition of
the Attorney General's name preceding that of the United States Attorney.
iH shave an uestions relating to this recu contact
Office, EOUSA, Thank you.
Thank you,
Office
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Washington, D.C. 20530
Phone:
3
EFTA00234000
I
EFTA00234001
Lee, Dexter (USAFLS)
From: (USAFLS)
Sent: Wednesda August 24, 2011 7:29 PM
To: (USAEO)
Subject: RE: Recusal matter
Thanks. I appreciate it.
Ben
From:
Sent: Wednes A t 24, 2011 3:11 PM
To: (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Recusal matter
I just wanted to update you on the recusal matter involving the matter with Mr. Epstein. The MDFL has agreed
to take the case. I will send out the formal notice shortly.
Thank ou
From: (USAEO)
Sent: Wednesd A t 03, 2011 10:20 AM
To: (USAFLS)
Subject: RE:
Hello
We have analyzed facts of your recusal inquiry and sent a recusal request to the ADAG. I will keep you
updated on the status of the request.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
kThan
From: (WARS)
Sent..sayjay 28, 2011 6:52 PM
To: (USAEO)
Subject:
Hi
1
EFTA00234002
Attached is a memo outlining (probably in exponentially more detail than you wanted) the background of the
Jeffrey Epstein case and some of the reasons why it would probably be best for another district to handle any
future investigation. As I mentioned, venue may lie in multiple districts, which may make it easier on
whichever district ultimately handles the investigation. Thanks as always.
Ben
Southern District of Florida
99 N.E. 4th Street
Miami, FL 33132
« File: Epstein Conflict Memo amended.wpd »
2
EFTA00234003
Lee, Dexter (USAFLS)
From: (USAFLS)
Sent: Monde , Au ust 29, 2011 2:08 PM
To: (USAEO)
Subject: RE: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No.
REC-11-4159)
Great. Thanks
From: (USAEO)
Sent: Monde A ust 29, 2011 1:58 PM
To: (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. FtEC-11-41S9)
Hello
Yes, that is correct. The investigations concerning Epstein. personally, are the matters your office is recused.
The CVRA matters, while stemming from matters involving Epstein, are matters brought be other individuals
and those matters may remain with your office.
Please let me know if you would like to further discuss or if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Office
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Washington, D.C. 20530
Phone:
Fax: 202.252.1650 - New Fax Number
Email:
Frc pi p.II(USAFLS)
Sent: on y, August , 2011 12:26 PM
1
EFTA00234004
To: (USAEO)
Sub : RE: RMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159)
Hi M,
I hope the storms and Irene haven't affected you too badly. I wanted to make sure I am correct that this
recusal from any new criminal investigation into E stein does not affect SDFL's handling of the CVRA civil case
pending before fudge Marra. I believe that had discussed the potential for recusal in the CVRA
matter with GC a while back and I am fairly certain that I discussed this with fay earlier this year at the
NAC. In both instances, the resolution was that our Office could and should handle the CVRA matter. I
wanted to make sure that is still the case. Thanks
From: (USAEO)
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 20 •
To: Ferrer Wifredo A. (USAFLS); (MARA). (USAFia (USAFLM)
Cc: (ODAG) ()MD ; (USAEO); (USAEO); (USAEO);
Subject: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159)
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Wifredo A. Ferrer
United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
Southern District of Florida
Robert E. O'Neill
United States Attorney
Middle District of Florida
Middle District of Florida
THROUGH:
2
EFTA00234005
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
FROM:
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
RE: Office-Wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida from the Investigation
and Potential Prosecution of Mr. Jeffery Epstein (GCO File No. REC-1I 4159)
THIS IS FORMAL NOTICE that IM IMIM), approved
the office-wide recusal of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) from
all matters, to include the investigation and potential prosecution, relating to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual
activities with minor females. The ADAG authorized this recusal in accordance with United States Attorney's
Manual (USAM) 3-2.170 and United States Attorney's Procedures (USAP) 3-2.170.001 based upon existing
conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest pertaining to the matter.
has assigned this matter to the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of
Florida and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 4 515(a), has directed and authorized United States Attorney Robert E.
O'Neill to conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and
proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
Florida is authorized by law to conduct regarding this matter. See USAP 3-2.170.001(61(O(2)()).
Each office should communicate directly with each other concerning the investigations related to this matter in
accordance with the procedu ► o lin 0.001 6 C 2 b 3. Th int f contact for the
Middle District of Florida is who an be ontacted at The 'tit of
contact for the Southern District o • orida is
who can be reached at
All Assistant United States Attorneys subsequently assigned to this matter must be appointed as Special
Attorneys in order to appear on behalf of the government in the Southern District of Florida. See USAM. 3-
2.300 and USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(CX2)0). Please contact Nicole West, EOUSA Personnel Staff, Policy and
Special Programs Division, at (202) 252-5625 to obtain the appointments.
In accordance with USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(CX2)(bX3), any Special Attorney assigned the matter or case should
sign any pleadings or documents using the signature block of the Middle District of Florida, with the addition of
the Attorney General's name preceding that of the United States Attorney.
If st have anquestions relating to this rec contact
Office, EOUSA, ra. t Thank you.
Thank you,
3
EFTA00234006
Office
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Washington, D.C. 20530
Phone
Fax: 202.252.1650 - New En Number
Email: n,ggibage
EFTA00234007
Lee, Dexter (USAFLS)
From: (USAFLS)
Sent: Wednesda , August 03, 2011 12:47 PM
To: (USAEO)
Cc: Sanchez, Eduardo (USAFLS); Stamm, Edward (USAFLS); Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS);
Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS); Mucci, Edward (USAFLS); Lee,
Dexter (USAFLS)
Subject: Re:
Great. Thanks
From: (USAEO)
Sent: Wedn 03, 2011 10:20 AM
To: (USAFLS)
Sub ect: RE:
Hello
We have analyzed facts of your recusal inquiry and sent a recusal request to the ADAG. I will keep you
updated on the status of the request.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Thanks
From: (USAFLS)
Sent: u , 2011 6:52 PM
To: (USAEO)
Subject:
Hi M•
Attached is a memo outlining (probably in exponentially more detail than you wanted) the background of the
Jeffrey Epstein case and some of the reasons why it would probably be best for another district to handle any
future investigation. As I mentioned, venue may lie in multiple districts, which may make it easier on
whichever district ultimately handles the investigation. Thanks as always.
Ben
Southern District of Florida
1
EFTA00234008
99 N.E. 4th Street
Miami, FL 33132
« File: Epstein Conflict Memo amended.wpd »
2
EFTA00234009
Lee, Dexter (USAFLS)
From: (USAEO)
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:32 PM
To: Ferrer, Wifredo A. (USAFLS); (USAFLM); (USAFLS);
(USAFLM)
Cc: (ODAG) 0MD • (USAEO); (USAEO);
(USAEO); (USAEO)
Subject: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No.
REC-11-4159)
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Wifredo A. Ferrer
United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
Southern District of Florida
Robert E. O'Neill
United States Attorney
Middle District of Florida
Middle District of Florida
THROUGH:
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
FROM:
1
EFTA00234010
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
RE: Office-Wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida from the Investigation
and Potential Prosecution of Mr. Jeffery Epstein (GCO File No. REC-11-4159)
THIS IS FORMAL NOTICE that approved
the office-wide recusal of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) from
all matters, to include the investigation and potential prosecution, relating to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual
activities with minor females. The ADAG authorized this recusal in accordance with United States Attorney's
Manual (USAM) 3-2.170 and United States Attorney's Procedures (USAP) 3-2.170.001 based upon existing
conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest pertaining to the matter.
has assigned this matter to the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of
Florida and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 515(a), has directed and authorized United States Attorney Robert E.
O'Neill to conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and
proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
Florida is authorized by law to conduct regarding this matter. See USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(C)(2)(b).
Each office should communicate directly with each other concerning the investigations related to this matter in
accordance with the procedures o t 0.001 6 C Th nt of c ntact for the
Middle District of Florida is who can be contacted at . The point of
contact for the Southern District of orida is
who can be reached at
All Assistant United States Attorneys subsequently assigned to this matter must be appointed as Special
Attorneys in order to appear on behalf of the government in the Southern District of Florida. See USAM. 3-
2.300 and USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(C)(2)(b). Please contact Nicole West, EOUSA Personnel Staff, Policy and
Special Programs Division, at (202) 252-5625 to obtain the appointments.
In accordance with USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(O(2)(b)(3), any Special Attorney assigned the matter or case should
sign any pleadings or documents using the signature block of the Middle District of Florida, with the addition of
the Attorney General's name preceding that of the United States Attorney.
If an uesti ns relating to this recu contact
Office, EOUSA, at. Thank you.
Thank you,
office
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
2
EFTA00234011
Washington, D.C. 20530
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
3
EFTA00234012
Lee, Dexter (USAFLS)
From: (USAEO)
Sent: Frida . Ju 29, 2011 4:35 PM
To: (USAFLS)
Subject: Re:
Thank you,
I am out of the office today and will review this on Monday.
Thanks again.
Rich
From: (USAFLS)
Sent: Thursda Ju 28, 2011 06:52 PM
To: (USAEO)
Subject:
Attached is a memo outlining (probably In exponentially more detail than you wanted) the background of the
Jeffrey Epstein case and some of the reasons why it would probably be best for another district to handle any
future investigation. As I mentioned, venue may lie in multiple districts, which may make it easier on
whichever district ultimately handles the investigation. Thanks as always.
Ben
Southern District of Florida
99 N.E. 4th Street
Miami, FL 33132
«Epstein Conflict Memo emended.wpd»
EFTA00234013
Lee, Dexter (USAFLS)
Front (USAFLS)
Sent Frida ,1u 29, 2011 4:43 PM
To: (USAEO)
Subject: RE:
Great. Have a good weekend.
From: (USAEO)
Sent Ju 29 2011 4:35 PM
To: (USAFLS)
Sub : Re:
Thank you,
I am out of the office today and will review this on Monday.
Thanks again.
Rich
From: (USAFLS)
Sent: Thursda Jul 28, 2011 06:52 PM
To: (USAEO)
Subject:
Hi a
Attached is a memo outlining (probably in exponentially more detail than you wanted) the background of the
Jeffrey Epstein case and some of the reasons why it would probably be best for another district to handle any
future investigation. As I mentioned, venue may lie in multiple districts, which may make it easier on
whichever district ultimately handles the investigation. Thanks as always.
Ben
Southern District of Florida
99 N.E. 4th Street
Miami, FL 33132
«Epstein Conflict Memo amended.wpd»
EFTA00234014
Lee, Dexter (USAFLS)
From: (USAFLS)
Sent: Thursda Jul 28, 2011 6:52 PM
To: (USAEO)
Attachments: Epstein Conflict Memo amended.wpd
Hi
Attached is a memo outlining (probably in exponentially more detail than you wanted) the background of the
Jeffrey Epstein case and some of the reasons why it would probably be best for another district to handle any
future investigation. As I mentioned, venue may lie in multiple districts, which may make it easier on
whichever district ultimately handles the investigation. Thanks as always.
Ben
Southern District of Florida
99 N.E. 4th Street
Miami, FL 33132
«EpStein Conflict Memo amended.wpd»
EFTA00234015
Memorandum
Subjccl Dale
Re: Jeffrey Epstein Investigation July 26, 2011
To From
Greenberg, First Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafafia
I. Introduction
This memorandum summarizes the conflict of interest related to the investigation by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") of additional crimes committed by Jeffrey
Epstein ("Epstein"). The memo begins with a brief overview of the original investigation
of Epstein, dubbed "Operation Leap Year"; summarizes the resolution of Operation Leap
Year by the Southern District of Florida; and addresses the events following the resolution
of Operation Leap Year, including the basis for the conflict. Lastly, the memo briefly
addresses the additional crimes that the FBI wants to investigate.
II. "Operation Leap Year"
The investigation of Jeffrey Epstein initially was undertaken by the City of Palm
Beach Police Department in response to a complaint received from the parents of a 14-year-
old girl, Saige, from Royal Palm Beach. When Saige and another girl began fighting at
school because the other girl accused Saige of being a prostitute, one of the school principals
intervened. The principal searched Saige's purse and found $300 cash. The principal asked
Saige 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, Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova. PBPD identified 27 girls who went to
Epstein's house to perform "massage services" (not including one licensed massage
therapist). The girls' ages ranged from 14 years' old to 23 years' old. Some girls saw
EFTA00234016
Epstein only once and some saw him dozens of times. The "massage services" performed
also varied. Some girls were fully clothed while they massaged Epstein; some wore only
their underwear; and some were fully nude. During all of these massages, Epstein
masturbated himself and he would touch the girl performing the massage, usually fondling
their breasts and touching their vaginas — either over their clothing or on their bare skin.
Epstein often used a vibrator to masturbate the girls and digitally penetrated a number of
them. For the girls who saw him more often, Epstein graduated to oral sex and vaginal sex.
Epstein sometimes brought his assistant/girlfriend, Nadia Marcinkova, into the sexual
activity. One of the girls described Marcinkova as Epstein's "sex slave".
On October 18, 2005, PBPD obtained a search warrant with the assistance of the Palm
Beach County State Attorney's Office ("PBSAO"). By this time, PBSAO had already been
contacted by Epstein's cadre of lawyers. When PBPD arrived at Epstein's home two days
later (10/20/05) to execute the search warrant, they found several items conspicuously
missing. For example, computer monitors and keyboards were found, but the CPUs were
gone.' Similarly, surveillance cameras were found, but they were disconnected and the
videotapes were gone. Nonetheless, the search did recover some evidence of value,
including message pads showing messages from many girls over a two year span. The
messages show girls returning phone calls to confirm appointments to "work." Messages
were taken by three of Epstein's "personal assistants."
Photographs taken inside the home showed that the girls' descriptions of the layout
of the home and master bedroom/bathroom area were accurate. PBPD also found massage
tables and oils, the high school transcript of one of the girls, and sex toys.
In sum, the PBPD investigation showed that girls from Royal Palm Beach High
School would be contacted by one ofEpstein's assistants to make an appointment to "work."
Up to three appointments each day would be made. The girls would travel to Epstein's home
in Palm Beach where they would meet Epstein's chefand Epstein's assistant—usually Sarah
Kellen—in the kitchen. The assistant would escort the girls upstairs to the master
bedroom/bathroom area and set up the massage table and massage oils. The girl sometimes
was instructed to remove her clothing. The assistant would leave and Epstein would enter
the room wearing a robe. He would remove the robe and lie face down and nude on the
'During a meeting, two of Epstein's attorneys, Gerald Lefcourt and Lilly Ann Sanchez,
admitted that attorney Roy Black instructed Epstein to have the CPUs removed although they
insisted that those instruction were given well in advance of the execution of the search warrant —
not in response to a "leak."
2
EFTA00234017
massage table. Epstein would then instruct the girl on what to do and would ask her to
remove her clothing. After some time, Epstein would turn over, so that he was lying face up.
Epstein would masturbate himselfand fondle the girl performing the massage. WhenEpstein
climaxed, the massage was over, and the girl was instructed to get dressed and to go
downstairs to the kitchen while Epstein showered. Epstein's assistant would be in the
kitchen and the girl would be paid—usually $200—and if it was a "new" girl, the assistant
would ask for the girl's phone number to contact her in the future.' Girls were encouraged
to find other girls to bring with them. If a girl brought another girl to perform a "massage,"
each girl would receive $200. Each time a girl returned to the house, Epstein would pressure
the girl to go further sexually, advancing to oral sex and sexual intercourse. Epstein would
pay more for these acts — in the words of one girl, "the more you do, the more you make."
The PBPD investigation consisted primarily ofsworn taped statements from the girls.
When PBPD began having problems with PBSAO, they approached the FBI. The
investigation was formally presented to the FBI and to the U.S. Attorney's Office after
PBSAO "presented" the case to a state grand jury and the state grand jury returned an
indictment chargingEpstein only with one felony count ofsolicitation of[adult) prostitution.
After the matter was presented to the U.S. Attorney's Office and there was a
determination that federal statutes had been violated, FBI, ICE, and the U.S. Attorney's
Office opened files. The federal investigation focused on the interstate nexus required for
all of the federal violations, so a number of grand jury subpoenas were issued for telephone
records, flight manifests, and credit card records. The federal agents also re-interviewed
some of the girls. The agents delved into Epstein's history and interviewed other girls and
obtained records to corroborate the girls' stories. FBI also interviewed girls who came
forward after the PBSAO indictment was reported in the papers and the additional girls
identified through those interviews.
The attempt to handle secretly the federal case was doomed from the start when the
Chief of the Palm Beach Police Department gave a letter to each of the victims identified
through his investigation telling them that, because ofhis disappointment in the way that the
PBSAO had handled the case, the matter had been referred to the FBI. Almost immediately,
Epstein's attorneys began calling to request a meeting with the U.S. Attorney's Office.
When one attorney was unable to schedule a meeting, Epstein hired another attorney who
called up the chain of command until someone agreed to a meeting.
'Sometimes Epstein made the payment and asked for the phone number, sometimes it was
the assistant.
3
EFTA00234018
Between January and May 2007, an indictment package was prepared, charging
Epstein and three ofhis personal assistants with a number ofchild exploitation offenses. The
case agent made several appearances before the grand jury. Attorneys for Epstein made
several presentations to the U.S. Attorney's Office to convince the Office not to prosecute,
and made allegations of prosecutorial misconduct against the line Assistant and the First
Assistant U.S. Attorney. Epstein also challenged the legal analysis behind the prosecution,
both within the U.S. Attorney's Office (up to the U.S. Attorney) and to the Child Exploitation
and Obscenity Section at the Justice Department. All of Epstein's challenges were
considered and rejected.
HI. The Resolution of "Operation Leap Year"
On September 24, 2007, Epstein signed a Non-Prosecution Agreement wherein the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District ofFlorida promised not to prosecute Epstein
for the crimes that were the subject ofthe grandjury investigation if: (1) he pled guilty to two
crimes in state court — the state felony prostitution charge and a state charge of procuring
minors into prostitution, which would require Epstein to register as a sex offender; (2) he
were sentenced to at least 18 months' imprisonment, and (3) he agreed to pay damages to the
victims ofhis offenses. After signing this Agreement, Epstein and his counsel decided that
they were dissatisfied with its terms, and again complained to the Justice Department,
seeking review to the Deputy Assistant Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General.
After those attempts also failed, on June 30, 2008, Epstein entered his guilty plea in
state court and began serving his sentence.
IV. Post-Resolution Events
A few days before the plea and sentencing (in state court those occur on the same
day), the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling the matter contacted counsel for three ofEpstein's
identified victims and informed him of the upcoming court date, encouraging his clients to
attend and be heard. They did not appear. On July 7, 2008, two of those victims filed suit
against the United States in federal court claiming that their rights had been violated under
the Crime Victims' Rights Act because they had not been consulted before the Office entered
into the Non-Prosecution Agreement. (This will be referred to as the "CVRA Action.")
After an initial flurry of activity, the Petitioners obtained a copy of the confidential
Non-Prosecution Agreement, and the Court ordered that it be shared with all of the identified
victims. After it was provided, the Petitioners and most ofEpstein's victims focused on their
4
EFTA00234019
civil suits against him.
In 2009, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Fort Lauderdale initiated an investigation into
a Ponzi scheme operated by Scott Rothstein through his law firm. As part of his Ponzi
scheme, Rothstein told investors that his law firm represented several of Epstein's victims
and that Epstein was willing to pay huge sums of money to avoid exposing his criminal
activities. The attorney representing the victims in the CVRA Action, Brad Edwards
("Edwards"), worked at the Rothstein firm. Epstein sued Edwards, alleging that Edwards
was part of the Ponzi scheme, and alleging that Edwards' attempts to subpoena some of
Epstein's high-powered friends were done to increase the value of the Ponzi scheme, rather
than for legitimate discovery purposes.
In the summer of 2010, most of the civil suits against Epstein were settled, including
the suits filed by the two victims in the CVRA Action. All of the settlements were
confidential, so it is unknown how much each of the victims received.
In September 2010, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra, who handled most ofthe civil
cases and the CVRA Action, issued an Order closing the CVRA Action. Almost
immediately thereafter, the Petitioners filed a Motion to Reopen, stating that they had
obtained discovery through their civil suits against Epstein that showed that the U.S.
Attorney's Office had violated their rights as victims.
For several months, attempts were made to resolve the matter. In short, the victims
have asked that the U.S. Attorney's Office disavow the Non-Prosecution Agreement, on the
basis that the CVRA was violated, and bring charges against Epstein. Edwards has said that
one of his clients repeatedly calls and asks him when Epstein is going to jail. One of the
other attorneys on the case has suggested that emails he considers to be embarrassing to the
Office will not be disclosed if we re-open our investigation of Epstein and prosecute him.
Herein lies the conflict. If the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
Florida re-initiates a grand jury investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, it will be perceived —
correctly or incorrectly — as having been done at the insistence of the victims in the CVRA
Action. And Epstein will allege that any prosecution arising therefrom will have been
undertaken in an effort to resolve the CVRA Action, not based upon the merits of the
investigation itself.
I. The FBI's Current Investigation
5
EFTA00234020
The main focus of the FBI's current investigation is a victim, Virginia, who refined
to speak with agents during the "Operation Leap Year" investigation. Based upon her
debriefing, Epstein engaged in several additional crimes, in the Southern District of Florida
and, more importantly, in several other Districts, with Virginia and other minor females.
Epstein transported Virginia in his private airplanes to engage in sexual activity with him.
Epstein also "pimped" Virginia to several of his other important friends, and transported her
to those sexual encounters. This activity was not part of the initial investigation.
Virginia also reported that, during the "Operation Leap Year" investigation, she was
contacted by Epstein's investigators, lawyers, and Epstein himself, and offered payment to
remain silent when contacted by the police.
FBI agents are seeking grand jury subpoenas at this time to corroborate Virginia's
statement. They also are asking for permission to approach one of Epstein's "personal
assistants," who was served with a target letter during the "Operation Leap Year"
investigation, to give her a "de-target" letter and interview her.
There are several other Districts that may have jurisdiction over the additional crimes
under investigation. Epstein lived and still lives in the Southern District of New York; he
engaged in sexual activity with Virginia in the S.D.N.Y.; and it is believed that he made the
calls from the S.D.N.Y. to Virginia wherein he offered to pay her to keep her from speaking
to law enforcement. When Epstein would fly into and out of New York, however, he used
the airport in Teterboro, New Jersey, so the District of New Jersey also has jurisdiction over
charges related to traveling in interstate commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct and
transporting minors in interstate commerce. Virginia reported that Epstein engaged in sexual
activity with her on his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands and also had her engage in
sexual activity with one of his friends on that island, so the District of the Virgin Islands also
would have jurisdiction. Virginia also reported frequent sexual activity with Epstein in the
District of New Mexico and the Central District ofCalifornia. In both of those Districts there
is evidence (from Virginia or other witnesses) of Epstein engaging in illegal sexual activity
with other underage victims, as well.
6
EFTA00234021
Lee, Dexter (USAFLS)
From: Mason, Peter (USAEO)
Sent Friday, December 17, 2010 12:45 PM
To: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Request for Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims
Rights Litigation
Dexter:
As your office is, from my understanding, will be looking to have this CVRA suit dismissed, consistent with
DoJ's position in other similar cases, under 12(b)(6) or equivalent because the plaintiffs did not have rights
under the CVRA as no formal charge was filed, there is not, at present, a need for your office to be
recused. If/when this changes and more substantive work may be involved (e.g. if a judge does not dismiss
under this procedural bar), we can revisit.
Have a good holiday.
- Peter
From: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS)
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:28 PM
To: Mason, Peter (USAEO)
Subject: Re: Request for Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation
Peter,
That is correct.
Dexter
From: Mason, Peter (USAEO)
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 02:43 PM
To: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Request for Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation
Dexter:
I take it by your schedule, that nothing is pressing on this allowing it to be handled, if recusal is
necessary, the week leading up to New Year's (27-30'1 )?
- Peter
From: USAEO-GCO Duty
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:15 AM
To: Mason, Peter (USAEO)
Cc: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS)
Subject FW: Request for Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation
EFTA00234022
Peter- Please see duty matter below. Thank you. Lorene
From: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS)
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 10:38 AM
To: USAE0-GC0 Duty
Cc: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Jacobus, Wendy (USAFLS)
Subject: Request for Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation
We are seeking guidance and advice from E0USA on whether this Office can continue to
represent the government in the defense of a Crime Victims Rights Act lawsuit, Jane Does 1 and 2'. United
States, Case No. 08.80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D.Fla.), in light of a request by Paul Cassell, counsel for the victims,
asking for an investigation of this office into what they claim is a "suspicious" criminal case and potential
improper influence of this Office.
In 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein, a multi-
millionaire investor living in Palm Beach, was enticing underage girls into prostitution. Epstein was alleged to
have paid underage girls to provide him with massages, while the young girls were unclothed. The case was
referred to the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office, and the FBI began its own investigation. Epstein hired a
number of highly-paid attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, to attempt to stave off criminal
charges.
Ultimately, in 2007, Epstein was charged in state court with soliciting minors for prostitution. In September
2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein, in which he agreed
to plead guilty to the state criminal charge, and serve a sentence of 18 months. Epstein also agreed that, in
any civil action under 18 U.S.C. 2255 by the underage victims, he would not raise the lack of a federal sex
offense as a defense. In July 2008, Epstein plead guilty, and was sentenced to serve six months at the Palm
Beach County Detention Facility, followed by 12 months in home detention.
In July 2008, after the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been executed, two victims, TM and CW, filed an
action under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. They claimed that the government was
obligated, under 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(5), to speak with the victims prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution
Agreement. An emergency hearing was held on July 11, 2008, before U.S. District Judge Kenneth
Marra. Since Epstein had entered his state court plea and been sentenced already, the court found there
was no emergency. He directed the parties to meet and determine if there were any factual disputes and
whether an evidentiary hearing would be necessary.
Attorney Brad Edwards initially represented the victims. Soon, he was joined by Paul Cassell, a University of
Utah law professor, and former federal judge who served in the District of Utah from 2002-2007. Cassell is a
victims' rights advocate who has appeared in many cases throughout the United States. The victims' rights
suit was inactive for the next two years, with Edwards and Cassell using the civil suit as a means to attempt to
gain access to information helpful in their civil actions for damages against Epstein. They were able to obtain
a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement through the civil litigation.
In August 2010, the district court, noting that the last civil suit had been settled, entered an order closing the
case. Edwards and Cassell immediately filed documents with the court, advising that the case should not be
closed or dismissed, and they wanted to pursue final action by the court. Since September 2010, AUSA
Marie Villafana and I have been dealing with Cassell and Edwards on how to resolve the case. They claim the
victims had a right to be consulted prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and that we
2
EFTA00234023
violated the CVRA by not consulting them. The remedy they seek is a set aside by the court of the Non-
Prosecution Agreement, and a prosecution of Epstein.
On December 10, 2010, United States Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer, First Assistant Ben Greenberg, Marie
Villafana, and I, met with Cassell, Edwards, and CW, one of the victims. We discussed the posture of the
case, and CW told us her views of what occurred and her desire to see Epstein receive justice for what he
did. Cassell presented U.S. Attorney Ferrer a four-page letter, requesting an investigation of the Jeffrey
Epstein prosecution. A copy of Cassell's letter is attached. He claims there may have been improper
influence exercising by Epstein, noting that Epstein is a "politically-connected billionaire." Cassell cites to
an alleged tip off to Epstein that a search warrant on his residence was to be executed; that a former AUSA,
Bruce Reinhart, left the West Palm Beach office and soon began appearing on behalf of individuals aligned
with Epstein; and an unprecedented level of secrecy between the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, where
the FBI was purportedly kept in the dark about the impending Non-Prosecution Agreement. He also claims
that the victims were deceived regarding the existence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
Cassell's request for an investigation was referred to DOJ OPR on December 16, 2010. We are concerned
whether the victims' allegations of potential misconduct by our office, that we were improperly influenced by
a wealthy individual into granting an extremely generous agreement sparing him federal prosecution, might
be a basis for questioning our office's impartiality in defending the Crime Victims Rights Act lawsuit. While
our litigating position is that the CVRA rights do not attach under a formal charge is filing, much of the
undercurrent of the litigation, particularly from the victims' viewpoint, is deceptive and improper conduct by
officials in the U.S. Attorney's Office.
I am at the NAC today. I will be going on my Christmas vacation starting tomorrow, December 17. I can be
reached by e-mail at all times, and also can be reached at all times at (786) 564-9114. I will be back at my
office on December 29.
Thanks for your assistance.
Ethics Advisor
Southern District of Florida
« File: cassell_OPR.pdf »
3
EFTA00234024
S.J. QUINNEY PAUL G. CASSELL
U COLLEGE OF LAW
. THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
December 10, 2010
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law
Telephone. 801.585.5202
cassellprglaw.utah.edu
'Wifredo A. Ferrer
United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
99 N.E.4" Street
Miami, FL 33132
Re: Request for Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Prosecution
Dear Mr. Ferrer:
I am writing as someone with extensive experience in the federal criminal justice system
— as a former Associate Deputy Attorney General, Assistant United States Attorney, federal
judge, and currently criminal law professor — to alert you to what seems to be the most
suspicious criminal case I have ever encountered. I ask that you investigate whether there were
improper influences and actions during your office's criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein,
particularly regarding the decision to enter into a binding non-prosecution agreement blocking
his prosecution for numerous federal sex offenses he committed over many years against more
than thirty minor girls.
As I am sure you are well aware, in 2006 your office opened a criminal investigation with
the FBI into allegations that for years Jeffrey Epstein sexual abused dozens of minor girls in hi
DataSet-10
Unknown
4 pages
•
(Rev.06-01-2007)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Precedence: ROUTINE Date:
TO: New York Attn:
From: Miami
PB-2/PBCRA
Contact: SA
Approved By:
Drafted By:
Case ID #s 31E —C#4-108062v" (Pending)
Title: JEFFREY EPSTEIN;
GHISLAINE N. MAXWELL;
WSTA - CHILD PROSTITUTION
Synopsis: To set leads for captioned investigation.
Reference: 31E-MM-108062 Serial 125
Enclosure(s): Enclosed for New York is a copy of referenced
serial, FD-302 of
Details: On 07/24/2006 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
Palm Beach County Resident Agency (PBCRA), began investigating
Jeffrey Epstein, a part-tim resident f Palm Beach alon with
his s nal assistants,
and Ghislaine Maxwell. PBCRA obtained information from
the City of Palm Beach Poli e D ar m nt (PBPD) that a fourteen-
year-old girl who lives in Florida, in the Southern
District of Florida, and who attended
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, digitally penetrated and used a
vibrator/massager on the fourteen-year-old's vagina.
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
kW- )0S0122- isy
037:ser O1.es-
MM12-31E-MM-108062 SEC 002 SER 71-175-000256
SONY_GM_02743176
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA 00229823
EFTA01325315
r
To: New York FrIl, Miami
Re: 31E-MM-108062, 02/06/2008
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
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 digitally penetrating the girl's
vagina. On some instances, Epstein also used a vibrator or
massager on the girl's vaginal area. When Epstein ejaculated, the
"massage" was over. 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, en a in 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 recovere search
contained text confirming appointment times.
Durin the PBCRA's investigation, the airls related
that would contact the girls while and
2
MM12-31E-MM-108062 SEC 002 SER 71-175.000257
SONY_GM_02743177
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA_00229824
EFTA01325316
To:
Re:
New York Fr: Miami
31E-MM-108062, 02/06/2008
•
Epstein were still in New York or elsewhere, in order to arrange
"massage" times upon his arrival in Palm Beach. The PBCRA's
investigation has collected the flight manifest for Epstein's two
private planes during the period of January 2004 through December
2005 as well as cellular phone records for Epstein and his
assistants. Th igation 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 home in Palm Beach, Epstein also
maintains residences in the U.S. Virgin Islands, New Mexico and
his New York residence, 9 E. 71st Street, New York, NY 10021.
Based on the ongoing criminal investigation, the PBCRA
is requesting assistance in establishing Epstein's criminal
activity utilizing interstate commerce and the travel in
interstate commerce to engag • ' • • al conduct and
prostitution. 5/2007, was telephonically
interviewed. advised itional minor
females had participated in similar activity with Epstein in the
New York area. Epstein utilized the same modus operandi which
has been documented in multiple interviews of minor females in
the Palm Beach, Florida area. Prior to conducting capti
the lead agent(s) contact SA
for investigative direction an
questions.
3
MM12-31E-MM-108062 SEC 002 SER 71-175.000258
SONY_GM_02743178
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA 00229825
EFTA01325317
To: New York Miami 0
Re: 31E-MM-108062, 02/06/2008
LEAD(s):
Set Lead 1: (Action)
NEW MEE
AT NEW YORK, NY •
Locate a 4 4
cellular telephone , no cepo nt to ase re ects
ecent address as
Determine from - any additional minor females who
may have interacted' with captioned subjects.
Set Lead 2: (Action)
NEW YORK
AT MASTIC, Ny
nterview
telephone Choicepo-n- aLaa ase reflects ner most
recent address as , Determine from
any additional minor females who may have interacted with
captioned subjects.
••
4
MM12-31E-MM-108062 SEC 002 SER 71-175.000259
SONY_GM_02743179
CONFIDENTIAL
EFTA 00229826
EFTA01325318
DataSet-10
Unknown
28 pages
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION AG
CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB
Judge David F. Crow
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
EDWARDS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein ("Plaintiff" or "Epstein"), hereby files the following Response in
Opposition to Defendant Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment ("Motion") and states as follows:'
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Edwards' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied for numerous
reasons. First, Epstein has not had an opportunity to conduct discovery essential to refute
Edwards' arguments. Edwards' insufficient privilege log has tied relevant discovery in knots.
Second, Edwards filed a "Statement of Undisputed Facts" with exhibits — all of which violate
Rule 1.510 and should be stricken. The "undisputed facts" are impertinent and entirely
irrelevant, as are the unswom and unauthenticated exhibits on which Edwards improperly relies
Nothing factually new has been submitted by Edwards. The Statement of Undisputed
Facts is identical to the one used for Edwards' first Motion for Summary Judgment.
EFTA00808026
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
to obtain summary judgment. Third, Edwards has not demonstrated the absence of material
issues of fact. His alleged participation in and/or knowledge of the Rothstein Ponzi scheme and
the validity of, and motivation in conducting, the discovery at issue in the underlying Epstein
actions are matters of considerable debate. Finally, as a matter of law, Edwards cannot secure
summary judgment on the basis of the sword and shield doctrine or the litigation privilege.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. Delay in Discovery Pending Resolution of Pleadings
On December 7, 2009, Jeffrey Epstein filed his Complaint against Bradley J. Edwards
and Scott Rothstein, seeking damages based on a scheme involving the marketing of investments
in lawsuits brought against the Plaintiff. Edwards filed his Answer and Counterclaim for Abuse
of Process on December 21, 2009.
On or about August 24, 2011, Epstein filed a narrowly-drawn Corrected Second
Amended Complaint, consisting of a single count against Edwards for abuse of process, and a
single count against Rothstein for conspiracy to commit abuse of process. Epstein alleged that
Edwards committed abuse of process by filing the Federal ■. action, deposing Epstein's airline
pilots and brother without asking any questions regarding the claims of Edwards' clients,
noticing for deposition famous acquaintances of Epstein who had no knowledge of the claims,
issuing a subpoena to a doctor who never treated Epstein, seeking health-related documents
when Epstein's health was not at issue, and filing an unfounded motion to freeze Epstein's assets.
From April 11, 2011 to November 17, 2011, the Court had stayed discovery until the Plaintiff
had a Complaint which survived a Motion to Dismiss.
2
EFTA00808027
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
B. RR:', Bankruptcy - Efforts to Get Records
On May 18, 2010, Judge Raymond Ray, Bankruptcy Judge for the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida ("Bankruptcy Court") entered an order that
established the process for anyone wishing to obtain discovery from the Trustee. The operation
of the Order was not limited to parties in the bankruptcy case. Further, the Bankruptcy Court
determined it had jurisdiction and retained jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or
related to the implementation or the interpretation of its Order without any limitation on the form
(A:1).
On July 14, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents from the
Trustee pursuant to the document production protocol established by the aforesaid Order (A: 2).
On August 4, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court conducted a hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to
Compel and entered an Order on August 13, 2010 appointing former Broward County Circuit
Court Judge Robert Carney as Special Master to review the documents responsive to the
Plaintiff's subpoena served on the Trustee, to determine the applicability of any privileges
asserted by ■., Bradley Edwards, or other former clients of Farmer Jaffee, where Edwards
presently works, and to prepare a privilege log. The Plaintiff, without objection, agreed and
was ordered to pay the legal fees and costs incurred by the Special Master in the preparation of
this log (A :5). Prior to the hearing, two motions in opposition were filed by Farmer Jaffee (A:
3 and 4).
Subsequently, on October 13, 2010, the Special Master filed a motion seeking
clarification of the Order appointing him (A: 7). Farmer Jaffee filed another motion in
3
EFTA00808028
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
opposition (A: 8 and 9). A hearing took place and an Amended Order was entered, which
allowed Farmer Jaffee to review and assist in the preparation of the privilege log (A: 10).
Farmer Jaffe received a portion of the electronically stored data on October 17, 2010 and was
required to prepare a detailed privilege log within thirty (30) days of receipt of the compact disk,
i.e., on or before November 15, 2010, at its cost (A: 10).
On November 2, 2010, ■. and Bradley Edwards filed a Motion for Relief from the
Amended Order and sought to have the Plaintiff pay for the production of all documents and fees
associated with the privilege log, which previously had been ordered by the Court for Farmer
Jaffe to pay. In addition, Farmer Jaffe and Edwards asked for more time (A: 12). As a result of
the Motion, an Agreed Order was entered granting additional time, and the Plaintiff agreed to
pay the cost of making physical copies of the documents on the compact disks for the purpose of
making it more convenient for Fanner Jaffee to prepare the privilege log (A: 13).
Even though Farmer Jaffee had received one compact disk on October 19, 2010 and
received another compact disk on or about November 15, 2010 from the Trustee, on December
16, 2010, Fanner Jaffee filed an emergency motion, after agreeing to the Order granting
additional time, not only for an extension of time but also for a stay in the preparation of the
privilege log pending its Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard by this Court (A: 16).
Edwards filed a similar motion with this Court which is presently set for hearing on January 27,
2011.
On December 21, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court conducted a hearing and entered an Order
allowing through January 31, 2011 for the privilege log to be prepared (A: 17).
4
EFTA00808029
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
[ADD PRIVILEGE HISTORY - PENDING MOTION.]
C. Present Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment
On November 4, 2011, Edwards filed a Renewed Motion for Final Summary Judgment
on the ground that Epstein could not seek affirmative relief because he had invoked the Fifth
Amendment at his deposition; Edwards' conduct was protected by a "litigation privilege;" and
Edwards was not involved in the Ponzi scheme (D.E. 390). On or about November 7, 2011,
Edwards filed a "Statement of Undisputed Facts" dated November 2, 2010 (D.E. 393), which is
exactly the same "Statement of Undisputed Facts" that he filed in September 2010 for his initial
Motion for Summary Judgment.
Nothing has changed in this recitation of "Facts," even though depositions of investors
have occurred which present disputed facts under oath based on personal knowledge, which is
just about all that Edwards presents here.
ARGUMENT
LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS
In order to obtain summary judgment against Epstein, Edwards must show: (1) the
nonexistence of a material factual issue, and (2) entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Fla.
R. Civ. P. 1.510(c), (2006). In Florida, the party moving for summary judgment must
conclusively demonstrate the nonexistence of an issue of material fact, and the court must draw
every possible inference in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.
Summary judgments should be cautiously granted, and the trial court should not enter summary
judgment unless the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law. If the
5
EFTA00808030
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
evidence will permit different reasonable inferences, it should be submitted to the jury as a
question of fact, and summary judgment should not be granted. McCraney v. Barberi, 677 So.
2d 355, 357 (Ha. 1s' DCA 1996); Albelo v. Southern Bell, 682 So.2d 1126, 1129 (Ha. 4'h DCA
1996). Finally, summary judgments are not favored. O'Connor v. Marston, 717 So. 2d 82 (Ha.
5th DCA, 1998).
It is also necessary for the movant to authenticate the undisputed facts upon which its
claim for summary judgment is based. Most of the facts and assertions contained throughout
Edwards' motion are unauthenticated and cannot form the basis for any summary judgment. Ha.
R. Civ. P. 1.540; Bifidco v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 693 So.2d 707 (Fla.
4th DCA 1997).
Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. I.510(c), a motion for summary judgment must specifically
identify "materials as would be admissible in evidence...on which the movant relies." Statements
in an affidavit that are irrelevant to the claims in suit cannot be considered on a motion for
summary judgment. See, e.g., Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Dwell, 131 So 2d 730 (Fla. 1961).
An affidavit based on hearsay does not provide a basis for summary judgment. See, e.g.,
Castro v. Brazeau, 873 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). By the same token, conclusory
allegations in an affidavit do not raise issues of facts and should be stricken. See, e.g., Reinke v.
O'Connell, 790 F. 2d 850, 851-52 (11th Cir. 1986).
Finally, summary judgment should not be granted until all discovery has been completed.
See, e.g., Sica v. Sam Caliendo Design, Inc., 623 So.2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
6
EFTA00808031
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAY NOT BE GRANTED FOR
EDWARDS BECAUSE CRITICAL DISCOVERY HAS BEEN
STALLED
1. Documents. Plaintiff has been attempting since last spring to obtain discovery of
communications, primarily in the form of emails originated and received at RRA with the intent
to depose appropriate witnesses after having had an opportunity to review the content of the
documents. To this end, Plaintiff served a subpoena on the bankruptcy Trustee appointed to
stand in the place of the now-defunct firm's management since before this case was filed. The
subpoena resulted in proceedings before Honorable Judge Ray of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
who appointed a Special Master. In response to several Orders entered by Judge Ray, Edwards
filed a I59-page privilege log claiming that over 200 documents were privileged. Epstein has
moved to compel production of documents by Edwards on the ground that the privilege log was
woefully insufficient. A hearing on Epstein's Motion to Compel Production of Documents by
Defendant Bradley Edwards and for Sanctions is pending.
2. Rothstein Deposition. For the first time, on July 1, 2011, the District Court
authorized Rothstein's deposition to begin on December 12, 2011, granting a stay to the
government. Epstein sought leave of the Bankruptcy Court to take the deposition of Scott
Rothstein on December 1, 2011. At that time, Judge Ray denied the Motion without prejudice,
because there was no time in the schedule to depose Mr. Rothstein.
The deposition of Scott Rothstein was taken in the bankruptcy proceeding of Rothstein,
Rosenfeldt and Adler ("RRA"), but not completed, from December 12, 2011 through December
7
EFTA00808032
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
22, 2011, by Order of Judge Cohn, the Federal judge presiding over Rothstein's criminal case.
Only a limited number of parties had an opportunity to question Rothstein during that time.
On January I I, 2012, Epstein filed a Renewed Motion to Depose Scott Rothstein. On
February 1, 2012, Epstein's Renewed Motion was heard by Judge Ray, who denied it without
prejudice to seek leave from Judge Cohn to be allowed to participate in the second deposition.
Epstein then filed a Motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum to Depose Scott
Rothstein, which Motion was granted by Judge Cohn on February 13, 2012. Judge Cohn
ordered that the second deposition take place from June 4, 2012 through June 15, 2012. Up
until now, Epstein has not had an opportunity to depose Rothstein; and as the record
demonstrates, he has proceeded with all due diligence to take Rothstein's deposition.
Rothstein's testimony is critical in the instant case. He is the central figure with
personal knowledge of material facts relating to Epstein's claims against Rothstein and Edwards.
Some of the relevant documents that Epstein has obtained show, among other things, that
Rothstein was involved in supervising and/or managing the Epstein cases; the Rothstein firm
developed a strategy to go after those persons closest to Epstein; RRA files of the Epstein cases
were shown by Rothstein to the Razorback investors; the purpose of the Ponzi scheme was to
personally enrich Rothstein and other co-conspirators and to supplement the income and sustain
the daily operation of RRA; to achieve this purpose Rothstein and other co-conspirators utilized
the offices of RRA and the offices of other co-conspirators to convince potential investors of the
legitimacy and success of the law firm, which enhanced the credibility of the purported
investment opportunity; RRA relied upon the Ponzi scheme to supplement and support the
8
EFTA00808033
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
operation and activities of RRA, to expand RRA by the hiring of additional attorneys and support
staff, to fund salaries and bonuses, and to acquire larger and more elaborate office space and
equipment in order to enrich the personal wealth of the persons employed by and associated with
RRA.
Thus, Rothstein's testimony is critical to the issues raised in Edwards' summary judgment
motion. It is essential that Epstein be able to ask Rothstein to be able to authenticate documents
he authored and to question him about his actions in marketing the Epstein litigation to the
Razorback investors. Rule 1.510(f) provides that a court may refuse the application for
summary judgment or order a continuance for depositions or discovery to be taken. Pursuant to
Rule 1.510(f), summary judgment is premature because extensive discovery is pending. See,
e.g., Sica, 623 So. 2d at 860 (reversing grant of summary judgment where properly-noticed
deposition had not as yet been taken); Singer v. Star, 510 So. 2d 637, 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
("Facts upon which the court based its decision were not fully developed because discovery was
in progress, and depositions were pending. Summary judgment was therefore premature.").
Epstein submits that this case is not the normal run-of-the-mill, slip and fall tort case or
breach of contract case. A former law firm with 77 lawyers collapses when its leader
perpetrates a giant, gigantic fraud brought about by use of the law firm. The principal member
and person most knowledgeable of the events has pled guilty and has been sentenced to 50 years
in prison. If one were to go on the United States Bureau of Prisons' website, he or she would
not find Scott Rothstein listed as a prisoner incarcerated there. He remains under high security
protection. Various efforts to depose him have only recently been successful, with Judge
9
EFTA00808034
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
Cohn's ruling, giving the United States government up until December 1, 2011 to complete its
investigation for any other indictments arising out of this law firm fraud.
The law firm itself is in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. The Trustee has commenced
approximately 127 adversary proceedings in order to reclaim law firm funds dissipated for the
purpose of this Ponzi scheme. It is not a simple process of subpoenaing the documents that
related to this firm. First, they are under the control of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, not this
Court. Second, and more importantly, all of the documents were created by a law firm and are
subject to numerous privilege challenges. Even the government has had ( order ) two teams of
lawyers reviewing in excess of six figures of documents for privilege issues for their indictment.
Certainly that takes precedence over a civil action. And, as Judge Cohn noted, Epstein was
lucky to be able to depose Rothstein. Under normal circumstances ( insert cite ), a writ of
habeas corpus from a State Court to the Bureau of Prisons is unenforceable and is subject
completely to the discretion of the Bureau of Prison Officials ( CVR cite ).
It is simply not realistic, believable, or fair to allow Mr. Edwards to oppose every effort
by Epstein to get documents or to prepare the case, while t the same time seeking to fast track
two — not one — but two summary judgment motions on a matter that is clearly not concluded or
ready or ripe for summary judgment hearing.
As previously argued, Epstein respectfully renews its Motion to either deny Edwards'
Motion as not ripe or postpone it until further discovery has been able to take place.
I0
EFTA00808035
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
EDWARDS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION MUST BE
DENIED BECAUSE HIS "STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
FACTS" IS SCURRILOUS AND IRRELEVANT
On November 3, 2011, Edwards served a Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment
together with a thirty-seven (37) page "Statement of Undisputed Facts," consisting of 120
separate paragraphs, most of which are either not material at all or, where arguably material, are
nonetheless disputed. At best only paragraphs 86 through 91 bear on the subject of this lawsuit.'-
In support of these 120+ allegedly "undisputed" facts, Edwards served an eight-inch tall
stack of "47 exhibits" and 22 "attachments" numbered respectively from "A" to "UU" and "1" to
"22". Collectively, we refer to these materials as the "Supporting Papers." Among these
Supporting Papers are 22 transcripts of depositions or excerpts of depositions — the
"Attachments" — most of which were taken prior to the filing of this action in 2009 and before.
The other "Exhibits" are a compendium of unswoni letters, pleadings and other court filings,
hearing transcripts, an unauthenticated copy of what purports to be a plea agreement between
Scott Rothstein and the government,; unsigned drafts, unsigned answers to interrogatories from
2 Nevertheless, Edwards fills 35 pages with facts that are not material to any issue in this
case for the apparent purpose of prejudicing Plaintiff in this Court with a gratuitous and graphic
recount of alleged conduct not in issue in this case, such as Plaintiffs alleged sexual exploits
with clients of Edwards. There can be no other reason, since the Plaintiff has not placed those
matters in issue. Edwards persists in attempting to use sex to shift the focus from his own
conduct.
3 See Exhibit "SS." The statement of facts incorporated into the plea agreement refers
throughout to Rothstein and "other co-conspirators" without naming those others. It intimates
that others working at RRA knew of the Ponzi scheme and conspired to advance the criminal
enterprise. Plaintiff believes Edwards is such a person, notwithstanding Edwards' production
of an unswom form letter from a Federal victim witness specialist identifying him as a possible
II
EFTA00808036
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
another case, New York Post and other media publications, items (such as phone messages)
allegedly garnered from Plaintiff and others pursuant to search warrants in criminal
investigations of Plaintiff, a purported copy of a visitor log from the Palm Beach County
Sheriffs Office, flight logs, and other documents the materiality of which is not facially
apparent.'
Edwards' Statement of Material Facts is a nasty mass of entirely irrelevant statements
based on hearsay and otherwise inadmissible materials that do not conform to the Rules of Civil
Procedure. It is a bad faith, if not reprehensible, attempt to smear and embarrass Epstein and
others under the guise of compliance with Rule 1.150(c). Although Edwards relies on the
following portion of Rule 1.510(c) to justify his submission, such reliance is misplaced because
Edwards is the movant, not the adverse party: " The adverse party shall . . . identify any
summary judgment evidence on which the adverse party relies . . ." No portion of Rule 1.150
authorizes the filing of hundreds of immaterial and impertinent "facts" in support of summary
judgment, particularly where the motion itself does not depend upon proof of such "facts."
victim of Rothstein (Exhibit "TT"), but has not yet been provided the documentary evidence he
has been seeking to use against Edwards.
4 For example, Attachment "I" purports to be a 183-page deposition of Plaintiff in a case
styled M. v. Jeffrey Epstein then pending in this Court, but the copy of the transcript is not
signed and certified by the court reporter or otherwise authenticated and is therefore inadmissible.
Attachment "2" consists of an excerpt of 9 pages of the purported transcript of a deposition of a
Jane Doe which apparently in its entirety is more than 568 pages in length. Edwards included
those pages to support the statement that Jane Doe was abused at least 17 times. It actually
does not support that statement, but regardless, the excerpt is not in any way authenticated.
Attachments "3" through "22" suffer from the same defect. The Exhibits, with the exception of
"N: are no better.
12
EFTA00808037
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
Edwards' "facts" fall into the following categories which, on their face, are unrelated to
Epstein's abuse of process claim and Edwards' defenses: "sexual abuse of children by Epstein"
(911 1-18); Epstein's plea agreement with the Federal government (1119-30); Edwards' agreement
to represent ■., M., and Jane Doe and the Crime Victim Rights Act filed by ■. and..
(911 31-40); Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to sex offenses (11 41-44); lawsuits filed by other
attorneys against Epstein and settlements in those cases (191 48-52); invocation of the Fifth
Amendment by Epstein and alleged co-conspirators in depositions taken in the "Epstein Actions"
M., ■., and Jane Doe) and other similar lawsuits (111 54-58); "blocking" of discovery by
various witnesses (9191 59-66); Epstein's purported association with Jean Luc Brunel, who
allegedly ran a modeling agency and sexually assaulted underage models who "presumably
live(d) as underage prostitutes in condos owned by Epstein" (191 65; see also 62-67); Edwards'
rationalization as to why he noticed Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, Donald Trump, David
Copperfield and Bill Richardson for deposition en 70-75); purported relevancy of pilot and
flight logs to show interstate airplane travel in support of Jane Doe's Federal Rico claims and
punitive damages (911 77-79); Epstein's interview with a New York newspaper reporter (9191
80-81); Epstein's alleged threats to witnesses (11 82-83); settlements in the Epstein Actions
84-5); and Edwards' purported non-involvement in the Ponzi scheme (1186-91).
This Court has ruled that Edwards is not entitled to discovery regarding Epstein's alleged
sexual misconduct because it is irrelevant. (See ). What allegedly transpired
between Edwards, M., and others simply does not disprove the allegations of abuse of
process or Edwards' defenses. Nevertheless, Edwards has made sexual misconduct the
13
EFTA00808038
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
centerpiece of his Statement of Undisputed Facts, filling the first 10 pages with graphic and
irrelevant details. It is readily apparent that Edwards' sole purpose in placing such scurrilous
"facts" and materials into the court file and the public domain is to vilify Epstein. There can be
no other reason for Edwards' baseless filing.
Moreover, the vast majority of the remaining "facts" are not remotely relevant to the
allegations that Edwards engaged in abuse of process by filing the Federal M. action, deposing
Epstein's airline pilots and brother without asking questions regarding the claims of Edwards'
clients, noticing prominent acquaintances of Epstein who had no knowledge of the claims,
issuing a subpoena to a doctor who never treated Epstein, seeking health-related documents
when Epstein's health was not at issue, and filing an unfounded motion to freeze Epstein's assets.
Nor are any of the remaining "facts" even remotely relevant to Edwards' summary judgment
arguments based upon the litigation privilege, the sword and shield doctrine, and the Ponzi
scheme. The following examples will vividly illustrate this point. Irrelevant to the point of
absurdity are extensive "facts" regarding the alleged sexual misconduct of purported
acquaintance Jean Luc Brunel and his visits to Epstein in jail (see 11 62-67); invocation of the
Fifth Amendment by alleged "co-conspirators" none of whom are named in the operative
Complaint or Edwards' summary judgment motion (see 11 54-58); alleged fabrication by third
parties (see 11 61-2); and Jane Doe's "escape() to Australia (see 151). None of these "facts" is
remotely relevant to the abuse of process allegations and Edwards' defenses. These are just a
few of the more egregious examples of immaterial "Facts" that vividly illustrate why the
Edwards' Statement of Undisputed Facts should be stricken.
14
EFTA00808039
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
Further undermining the validity of Edwards' Statement of Undisputed Facts is the fact
that Edwards only cites his Statement sporadically and generally in his summary judgment
motion (see pp. 9, 10 at n. 2, 13, 14 and 15), and does not reference any specific "facts" in his
summary judgment motion. The only conclusion to be drawn is that Edwards' "Statement of
Undisputed Facts" is a sham and should be stricken.
EDWARDS' "SUPPORTING PAPERS" VIOLATE FLA. R.
CIV. P. 1.510 AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN, AS SHOULD
ALL "FACTS" BASED THEREON
Edwards' "Supporting Papers" — with the exception of Exhibit N, Edwards' Affidavit —
violate Rule 1.510 because they are not properly authenticated and are based on inadmissible
hearsay. They must be stricken together with the "facts" based thereon.
a. No Authentication. None of the Supporting Papers, save two, is sworn or certified
in any manner whatsoever. None of the Supporting Papers is accompanied by an affidavit of a
records custodian or other individual attesting to its authenticity, completeness or correctness.
For example, Attachment "I" purports to be a 183-page deposition of Plaintiff in a case styled
v. Jeffrey Epstein then pending in this Court, but the copy of the transcript is not signed and
certified by the court reporter, or otherwise authenticated, and is therefore inadmissible.
Attachment "2" consists of an excerpt of 9-pages of the purported transcript of a deposition of a
Jane Doe which apparently in its entirety is more than 568 pages in length. Edwards included a
9-page unauthenticated excerpt to support the statement that Jane Doe was abused at least 17
times, but the excerpt does not support that statement. Attachments "3" through "22" suffer
from the same defect. The exhibits are no better.
15
EFTA00808040
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
The law is settled that unauthenticated documentary evidence may not be relied on or
considered in support of a motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., Hollywood Towers
Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Hampton, 993 So. 2d 174, 175-176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
(unauthenticated photocopies of check, letter and bank statement attached to motion for
summary judgment could not be used to support motion); Eifitico, 693 So. 2d at 710 (trial court
could not consider unswom or uncertified insurance documents attached to motion for summary
judgment); Mack v. Commercial Industrial Park, Inc., 541 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
(contractual exhibits which were unaccompanied by an affidavit could not be considered in
support of motion for summary judgment). In &fitico the court observed, 693 So. 2d at 710
(emphasis added) :
[lit is unquestionably clear that the documents attached to
Edwards' motion are not sworn to or certified in any manner
whatsoever, nor are they in proper admissible form. They are not
accompanied by any affidavit of a records custodian or other
proper person attesting to their authenticity or correctness. . . .
They were received without any foundation other than the
representations of Appellees counsel. In short, rule 1.510(e), by its
very language, excludes any document from the record on a
motion for summary judgment that is not one of the enumerated
documents or is not a certified attachment to a proper affidavit.
The documents in question in the case before us, standing by
themselves, are insufficient to satisfy the heavy burden Appellee
must meet in order to justify the granting of summary judgment in
its favor.
b. Inadmissible Hearsay. In addition, the Supporting Papers and "facts" based thereon
must be stricken because they contain inadmissible hearsay. First, the Supporting Papers were
not authenticated by anyone in an attempt to lay the required foundation for admissibility as
public or business records. See Gray v. State, 910 So. 2d 867, 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
16
EFTA00808041
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
(document on Department of Corrections letterhead was hearsay where foundation not laid for its
admission as a business record or a public record); Bifidco, 693 So. 2d at 710-711 (insurance
documents attached to motion for summary judgment were inadmissible under business records
or public records exceptions to hearsay rule where required predicate was not established);
Adams v. State, 521 So. 2d 337, 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (business records are inadmissible
without a proper foundation for their admission). See also Fridman v, City of N.Y., 183 F. Supp.
2d 642, 646 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (newspaper articles disregarded as hearsay).
The following documents included in the Supporting Papers are being offered by
Edwards to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein and are rank, prejudicial hearsay: the
"Holy Grail" (Ex. F), a "journal" assertedly taken from Epstein's computer and cited by Edwards
inn 16-18; correspondence between the U.S. Attorney and Jay Leflcowitz, Esq. (Exs. C and D
and 9fq 6, 20, 25) and Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. (Ex. L andl 28); a book receipt (Ex. I and 1 22),
message pads (Ex. A. 1 24) and a property receipt (Ex. O and 1 34) ; correspondence between the
FBI and and (Ex. M and 11 29, 30); newspaper articles and photos and blogs (Exs. X,
Y, AA, DD, FF, LL, NN,9191 50, 52, 59, 61, 62, 68, 71); a jail visitor log (Ex. GG, 1 63); and
flight logs (Ex. MM, 1 72). Accordingly, the Supporting Papers must be stricken, as should the
"facts" based thereon.
Third, the Palm Beach Police Incident Report (Ex. A), cited widely by Edwards in
support of 113, 12, 13, 21, 23, 27, 82, constitutes double hearsay, and cannot be used to support
his summary judgment motion. See Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137, 140 (Fla. 2002) ("The
information contained in police reports is ordinarily considered hearsay and inadmissible in an
17
EFTA00808042
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
adversary criminal proceeding."); Jenkins v. State, 803 So. 2d 783, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16957
(Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ("Where basis for involuntary commitment came from admission of police
reports with unswom allegations of serious sexual misconduct, evidence was hearsay, and
perhaps multiple hearsay, and thus could not be the basis for commitment; trial court erred in
admitting the same as it amounted to violation of patient's right to confrontation."); Kashino v.
Morel!, 449 So. 2d 958, 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (police accident report inadmissible in civil
suit). Thus, Edwards' reliance on the Palm Beach Police Incident Report is egregious error. The
report and "facts" based thereon must be stricken.
Finally, inadmissible and improper triple hearsay forms the basis of the "facts" set forth
in ¶ 80, in which Edwards cites the affidavit of Michael Fisten (Ex. QQ), an investigator who
recounted what George Rush, a New York Daily News reporter, told Fisten what Epstein had
said in an interview with Rush.
EDWARDS' "FACTS" PERTAINING TO OTHER
PURPORTED ACTS OR WRONGS ARE NOT PROBATIVE
AND ARE HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL
Many, if not the majority, of Edwards' "facts" detail in graphic terms alleged misconduct
by Epstein wholly unrelated to the allegations in the instant litigation. Pursuant to Fla. R. Evid.
§90.404(1), evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is inadmissible when the evidence is
introduced solely to prove bad character, or that the person acted in conformity with his
character. See, e.g., Jacobs v. Westgate, 766 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (error to admit
evidence that roommate bounced checks in action for negligent disposition of property because
such evidence was inadmissible to "disparage" plaintiffs character). Thus, Edwards' evidence
18
EFTA00808043
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
of other wrongs has been put into a public document solely to smear Epstein and poison the well.
However, §90.404(I), Fla. Stat., prohibits the admission of other wrongs evidence for purposes
of character assassination.
ALLEGATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE UNDISPUTED
FACTS
To the extent that Edwards' "facts" are based on allegations in various complaints, they
are improper and should be stricken. (See 11 4, 71, Ex. B). For example, Edwards cites the
Jane Doe 102 Complaint in support of the "facts" in 1 4 that "there is overwhelming proof that
the number of underage girls molested by Epstein through his scheme was in the hundreds."
Edwards' reliance on such allegations to proof of undisputed "facts" is egregious. It is well
settled that mere allegations do not constitute "facts" for purposes of summary judgment. See,
e.g., Metro. Dade County v. Wilkey, 414 So. 2d 269, 271 (FIa. 3d DCA. 1982) ("[P]leadings are
not admissible in evidence to prove or disprove a fact in issue.") (citing Hines v. Trager
Construction Co., 188 So.2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966) (the pleadings of a cause are merely
tentative outlines of the position the pleader takes before the case is fully developed on the facts,
and hence are inadmissible to prove facts alleged therein)).
PLEA NEGOTIATIONS AND RELATED PAPERS ARE
INADMISSIBLE
Edwards' "facts" and Supporting Papers regarding plea negotiations and a plea agreement
between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office, including letters between the U.S. Attorney's
Office and Epstein's counsel, a prosecution memo and indictment, an investigation by the Palm
Beach Police Department, and notification of .. and.. (see 11 5, 20-30; Exs. A, C, H, I, K,
19
EFTA00808044
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
L, M) must be stricken for numerous reasons. First, none of the purported "facts" detailed in
5, 20-30 are even remotely relevant to the issues in suit. It is readily apparent that Edwards'
assertions that Epstein was successful in "attempt[ing] to avoid the filing of numerous federal
felony offenses" (1 5) and "Epstein's attorneys knew of Epstein's scheme to recruit minors for
sex..." (¶ 6) are extraneous and highly prejudicial, demonstrating the specious nature of
Edwards' Statement of Undisputed Facts.
Second, Edwards' filing of correspondence and documents between Epstein's counsel and
Federal prosecutors violates an Order entered in Jane Doe No. 2. v. Epstein, Case No.
08-80893-Marra/Johnson on January 5, 2011. (See D.E. 226) (Ex. A attached hereto).
Pursuant to that Order, Edwards is required to seek leave of court before filing or making public
the subject correspondence and documents. Edwards, however, did not seek leave of this Court
before making public thousands of pages of confidential documents subject to the Federal Order.
Third, evidence of a settlement or statements made during settlement negotiations are
inadmissible to prove liability under §90.410, Fla. Stat. See Richardson v. State, 706 So. 2d
1349, 1355-1356 (Fla. 1998) ("Rule 3.172(h) and Section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1991),
prohibit the admission of statements given during plea negotiations."); State v. Walters, 12 So.
3d 298, 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (error to admit e-mails exchanged during plea negotiations;
exclusion of offers to compromise is based on ground that the evidence is irrelevant and public
policy favors amicable settlements of disputes and the avoidance of litigation); Debiasio v. State,
789 So. 2d 1061, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 8039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ( a letter from the defendant's
attorney to the State's attorney stating that defendant was willing to accept responsibility for
20
EFTA00808045
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
what he had done was an offer to plead guilty that was inadmissible evidence under Ha. Stat. §
90.410).
In the instant case, any and all evidence cited by Edwards regarding the plea negotiations
between Epstein's counsel and the U.S. Attorney's Office must be stricken for the reasons set
forth herein.
THE SWORD AND SHIELD DOCTRINE DOES NOT
SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR EDWARDS
Edwards contends that Plaintiff must be denied any affirmative relief regardless of the
merits of his cause, because at his deposition taken in the instant case, Plaintiff refused to answer
certain questions, invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege. (Mot. at 19-20). Edwards also
argues that he is entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff's assertion of the Fifth
Amendment raises adverse inferences which conclusively establish that Plaintiff's claims are
without merit. (Id. at 21-2). Edwards' arguments are wrong.
First, Edwards misapprehends the nature and application of the "sword and shield"
doctrine, which "embraces the rule `that a plaintiff may not seek affirmative relief in a civil
action and then invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid giving discovery in matters pertinent to the
litigation.' DeLisi v. Bankers, Ins. Ca, 436 So. 2d 1099, 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (quoting
City of St. Petersburg v. Haughton, 362 So. 2d 681, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (emphasis added)).
See also Brancaccio v. Mediplex Mgmt. of Pon St. Lucie, Inc., 711 So. 2d 1206, 1208-1210 (Ha.
4th DCA 1998) (approving City of St. Petersburg and Village Inn Rest v. Aridi, 543 So. 2d
778,782 (Ha. 1st DCA 1989)), in which the First District agreed that "sanctions may be
necessary where a plaintiff in a civil action invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against
21
EFTA00808046
Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG
Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ
revealing relevant information in pretrial discovery." (emphasis added). The Fourth District
explained in Brancaccio that the "Supreme Court has disapproved of procedures which require a
party to surrender one constitutional right in order to assert another..." 711 So. 2d, at 1210.
Thus, a "civil defendant [does not] have an absolute right to have the action dismissed any time a
plaintiff invokes his constitutional privilege."
Pursuant to the foregoing authorities, Plaintiff's claims may not be dismissed on
summary judgment pursuant to the "sword and shield" doctrine because the information Edwards
sought to elicit from Plaintiff at his deposition, and the answers Plaintiff declined to give in
response to questions about his alleged misconduct and criminal activity, would not provide any
information relevant to Plaintiff's claims or Edwards' defense of those claims. Plaintiff's
allegations are based on the belief that Edwards inflated purported claims against Plaintiff and
conducted discovery of high profile figures in the cases pending at the Rothstei
DataSet-10
Unknown
18 pages
J78repsc
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2 x
3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
4 v. 19 CR 490 (RMB)
5 JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Conference
6 Defendant.
x
New York, N.Y.
July 8, 2019
2:00 p.m.
9 Before:
10 HON. RICHARD M. BERMAN
11 District Judge
12
13
APPEARANCES
14
15 GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney for the
16 Southern District of New York
17
18 Assistant United States Attorneys
19
REID H. WEINGARTEN
20 MARTIN G. WEINBERG
MARC FERNICH
21 Attorneys for Defendant
22
Also Present:
23
- Special Agent FBI
24 - NYPD
- Probation Officer
25 - Probation Officer
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
EFTA00079728
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. ROSSMILLER: That's correct, your Honor. I don't
9 want to speak for defense counsel, but my understanding is they
10 expect to put in some sort of written submission and return to
11 argue the rest of the bail hearing on Thursday before Judge
12 Pitman at 2:00. That is, if your Honor refers the bail hearing
13 to Judge Pitman on that basis as well.
14 THE COURT: I might just take that bail application
15 before me. We'll figure out a time when that would be
16 comfortable for all of you. How is that?
17 MR. WEINGARTEN: That's fine with the government, your
18 Honor.
19 THE COURT: I have a few items on my list. I want to
20 make mention, I'm sure Magistrate Judge Pitman did, of our
21 presumption of innocence. Even though in some of these
22 discussions, and probably more so when we get to bail, it may
23 sound like we are talking about merits of the case, it's
24 important that we underscore that the presumption of innocence
25 pertains to Mr. Epstein, now and until such time, if it comes,
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
EFTA00079729
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. ROSSMILLER: 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. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, as the government set
20 forth in its submission to Judge Pitman, and we copied this
21 Court, it is our understanding that the defendant is a tier 3
22 sex offender in New York and that that is characterized as
23 high-risk individual.
24 THE COURT: The question that I have is what are the
25 implications, if any, of the search conducted by the U.S.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
EFTA00079730
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. ROSSMILLER: May I have one moment, your Honor?
7 THE COURT: Yes.
8 MR. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, in response to that
9 question, at the outset I should say that we don't have
10 particular interaction with state authorities with respect to
11 those types of notifications. We are, I would say, in the
12 early stages of reviewing those materials. With respect to the
13 defendant's obligations or potential consequences in the New
14 York State system, we certainly will notify whichever
15 authorities are appropriate. I don't think that we have a role
16 other than that.
17 I will say that they are extremely concerning with
18 respect to bail here, with respect to the conduct here, and
19 expect we will get into that more in our submissions and bail
20 argument.
21 THE COURT: By the way, if defense counsel wants to
22 jump in at any point, feel free to do that?
23 MR. WEINGARTEN: On that, we have not seen the
24 pictures.
25 THE COURT: I haven't either.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
EFTA00079731
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. ROSSMILLER: 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. ROSSMILLER: Not in ways that I am aware of now,
16 your Honor. Again, we are very much in progress on the search.
17 We will continue to consider any other implications beyond this
18 case as we continue to review those materials.
19 On a separate note, your Honor, I want to add the
20 government noted it is aware of its victim obligations. In
21 terms of notification, we have made notification to individuals
22 that we are in particular aware of. We also have listed a
23 phone number for victims to be in touch with the FBI, with the
24 U.S. Attorney's office. We have also put a website up and have
25 asked victims to be in touch with us through those sources as
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
EFTA00079732
J78repsc 6
1 well. That is just to round out the notification that the U.S.
2 Attorney's office has made.
3 MR. WEINGARTEN: May I be heard briefly on that?
4 THE COURT: Sure.
5 MR. WEINGARTEN: For us, your Honor, the NPA is the
6 center of the universe for everything, search included, because
7 the NPA was the result of an extensive 3-year investigation by
8 law enforcement in Florida. In essence, the Feds made Mr.
9 Epstein plead to a state offense and they declined prosecution
10 federally, and that is translated in the NPA. Mr. Epstein did
11 his time, Mr. Epstein is on the registration list, and Mr.
12 Epstein paid the alleged victims.
13 As I am sure you have noted from the indictment, that
14 conduct too is an ancient history. That conduct is 2002 to
15 2005. It is our belief that this is basically a re-do. This
16 is basically the Feds today, not happy with what happened in
17 the decision that led to the NPA, redoing the same conduct that
18 was investigated 10 years ago and calling it, instead of
19 prostitution, calling it sex trafficking. We think that is the
20 heart of everything, and that will be the centerpiece of our
21 defense, at least legally.
22 THE COURT: My understanding of what the government is
23 asserting is that the episodes that occurred in Manhattan were
2.1 not included in the nonprosecution agreement in Florida and
25 that there is a separate basis not only for a sex trafficking
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
EFTA00079733
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. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, if I could very briefly
16 respond to those points?
17 THE COURT: Sure.
18 MR. ROSSMILLER: I expect this will be briefed and
19 argued on Thursday. I don't intend to go into extensive
20 details about that. I just want to flag for the Court that
21 defense counsel is saying that this conduct is ancient. What
22 he is not saying is it is beyond the statute of limitations,
23 because it is not.
24 Second, the allegation that this is some kind of a
25 conspiracy within the Department of Justice is just false.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
EFTA00079734
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. ROSSMILLER: Yes, your Honor. I do expect that we
14 can brief this, but the short version is that this prosecution
15 is not precluded by the nonprosecution agreement entered into
16 by the defendant in the Southern District of Florida. That
17 agreement expressly referred to that federal district. It
18 didn't purport to bind any other office or district.
19 It is well-settled in the Second Circuit that a plea
20 agreement in one U.S. Attorney's office does not bind another
21 unless otherwise stated. That is even if, based on case law,
22 the agreement refers generally to "the government." Again,
23 additionally, as set forth in the indictment returned by the
24 grand jury, the substantive count alleges acts occurring in New
25 York and alleges New York-based victims.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
EFTA00079735
J78repsc
1 That is in spite of the fact that the Southern
2 District is not bound, is not a signatory to, and otherwise has
3 no connection to the NPA. And there is no evidence that we
4 have come across that the Southern District of New York was
5 consulted, asked, involved, notified as far as we have seen.
6 For those reasons and others I'm sure we will brief,
7 we don't think the NPA applies to us.
MR. WEINBERG: If I may reply briefly, your Honor?
9 THE COURT: Yes.
10 MR. WEINBERG: I have been one of Mr. Epstein's
11 counsel through the CVRA litigation which started in 2008 and
12 continues. In fact, our briefing is today. The NPA provided
13 him with immunity for any offenses arising from a joint
14 FBI/grand jury/U.S. Attorney investigation that led to a
15 decision by Mr. Epstein to plead to a higher state offense than
16 the state prosecutors contemplated. He went to jail, signed an
17 agreement, and has lived up to its terms 100 percent.
18 We have seen in the paperwork of the CVRA, in the
19 Southern District of Florida, in writing at docket 205-2 the
20 government's motion to dismiss CVRA, urging that the witnesses
21 there go to the Southern District of New York and essentially
22 try to motivate them to prosecute for the very same conduct, in
23 other words, the conduct that Mr. Epstein was immunized,
24 including travel between two states, telephonic communications
25 between two states. Florida immunized him for the same travel
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
EFTA00079736
J78repsc
1 and telephonic communications as well as the 1591 category.
2 In addition, the Department of Justice reviewed the
3 NPA on several occasions in 2008 and essentially confirmed that
4 the exercise of discretion shown in Florida was appropriate.
5 But the most important thing is that there was communication
6 between the prosecutors in Florida, perhaps through prosecutors
7 in Georgia that took over the case because the Florida
8 prosecutors were recused as a result of Judge Marrah's
9 decisions in the CVRA case.
10 We know the government is relying in part on evidence
11 that was generated by the Southern District of Florida case
12 back in 2007. They have talked about message pads, telephone
13 records. They are the same message pads and telephone records
14 that reflect conduct that was exclusively 15, 16, 17 years ago.
15 So we do have a principal position that we will put to the
16 Court at the appropriate time regarding the legality of this
17 prosecution and whether or not it is appropriately barred.
18 I can say as a criminal defense lawyer of 45 years,
19 when there is an interstate wire, mailing, travel, and there is
20 one district that is conducting an investigation, you negotiate
21 with that district and count on the Department of Justice to
22 what it does every day decade after decade after decade, which
23 is not to go to the second jurisdiction that received the mail
2.1 that was sent from the immunizing jurisdiction and have a
25 prosecution on the very same conduct. We will be briefing
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
EFTA00079737
J78repsc
1 that.
2 THE COURT: Do you anticipate that there is going to
3 be any discussion here about the legality of the NPA?
4 MR. WEINBERG: Not the legality of the NPA. I th_-k
5 the discussion here is going to be about its scope.
6 THE COURT: From the defense, yes. You don't think
7 you expect to hear anything from the government, for example?
8 MR. WEINBERG: In the Southern District case, the CVRA
9 case, maybe two weeks ago the Northern District of Georgia
10 prosecutors, who are proxy for the Southern District of
11 Florida, filed the submission before District Judge Marrah in
12 the CVRA case totally supporting the constitutionality and
13 legality of the NPA, their discretion to enter into it, and
14 that there absolutely has never been a charge that Mr. Epstein
15 ever did anything other than fully perform his end as a citizen
16 who is expecting the benefits of a contract that he lived up
17 to.
18 THE COURT: I thought there had been some contention
19 that the way that the victims vis-a-vis the Florida NPA were
20 dealt with or not dealt with was one basis for attacking the
21 legality of that arrangement.
22 MR. WEINBERG: The petitioners are vigorously and have
23 vigorously for many years challenged, many years starting quite
2.1 frankly after Mr. Epstein performed his obligations to go to
25 jail and challenged it, claiming that there was no consultation
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
EFTA00079738
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. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, if I may very briefly?
11 THE COURT: Yes.
12 MR. ROSSMILLER: The crux of the defense argument here
13 I think cuts precisely the other way. They are arguing that
14 the Southern District of Florida has sort of sent up a flag
15 that these prosecutions could be undertaken elsewhere. That's
16 true. The Southern District of Florida has argued in papers
17 that they believed, the Southern District of Florida believed,
18 that the nonprosecution agreement was limited to that district.
19 They have said that out loud and in public and in their
20 positions in filing.
21 So certainly this investigation was not shoveled to
22 the Southern District of New York from anywhere else, including
23 the Department of Justice. We expect that the nonprosecution
24 agreement will not be an impediment, in particular because the
25 defendant certainly did not lack for sophisticated counsel in
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
EFTA00079739
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. Rossmiller: In your letter you
22 describe some obstruction or harassment, witness tampering,
23 alleged, by Mr. Epstein. That, I take it, is going to be
24 included in any response or any bail submission made by the
25 government?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
EFTA00079740
J78repsc 14
1 MR. ROSSMILLER: 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. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, we don't expect any
13 imminent superseding indictments in this case. It certainly is
14 possible down the road.
15 MR. WEINGARTEN: May I make one point, your Honor?
16 These obstruction allegations we find very nettlesome and
17 bothering. My understanding is that the Feds and Mr. Epstein's
18 attorneys back in the early 2000s, or 2007 and 8, when they
19 were negotiating were looking desperately for an appropriate
20 statute. They finally settled on a state statute that Mr.
21 Epstein pled to. We all know how unusual that is. There was
22 some consideration of a federal statute, including obstruction.
23 So lawyers in good faith were having discussions back
24 and forth whether or not they could squeeze Mr. Epstein's
25 conduct into a particular statute, and they concluded they
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
EFTA00079741
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. ROSSMILLER: 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. ROSSMILLER: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.
22 (Pause)
23 MR. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, the government is
24 prepared to rely on its initial submission at least for its
25 first argument. I expect defense counsel will respond to that
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
EFTA00079742
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. ROSSMILLER: 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. ROSSMILLER: Yes, your Honor. The government asks
23 that speedy trial time be excluded until Monday. We do expect
24 to begin the process of working on producing discovery, to
25 include discussions with defense counsel about a protective
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
EFTA00079743
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. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor. May we have one more
20 moment with defense counsel?
21 THE COURT: Sure.
22 (Pause)
23 MR. ROSSMILLER: Nothing from the government. Your
24
25 THE COURT: Defense?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
EFTA00079744
J78repsc
1 MR. WEINBERG: Nothing from the defense, your Honor.
2 THE COURT: Nice to see you all. See you on Monday.
3 Thank you.
4 (Adjourned)
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
EFTA00079745
DataSet-10
Unknown
7 pages
-1 of 7 - OFFICIAL tiRisotto
FD-302 (Res•. 5-8-10) Of
•••••••• ••••
a.. ..... •••t- 0, •
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date of entry 33/33/2021
JANUSZ BANASIAK (BANASIAK), date of birth (DOB) , was interviewed
at West Palm Beach FL. Present for this interview was
.ted States At along with Special Agent
and Detective . After being advised of the identity
listed individual and the nature of the interview, BANASIAK
provided the following information:
BANASIAK wants to make correction on a previous statement he made about the
phone book with black cover. He states it's not black, it's maybe silver or
metal square on the front and back. He had previously mentioned that it was
black because he remembers people saying someone was trying to sell the
black book. The pages were in between the metal squares.
In 1980 BANASIAK moved to the United States. He first lived in New York.
Then he moved to Virginia to work for Seagrams. BANASIAK then went back to
New York to apply for jobs. He moved to Brooklyn and was living with a
friend.
BANASIAK applied for a job with JEFFREY EPSTEIN through an employment
agency. BANASIAK got a call about the job and then he interviewed with
GHISLAINE MAXWELL. That interview was in MAXWELL's New York house. This
house was between Lexington Avenue and Park Avenue. It was a regular
townhouse. Her office was on the first floor. The interview was about 30
minutes. MAXWELL asked BANASIAK where he worked before. MAXWELL tells
BANASIAK that he will next be interviewing with EPSTEIN.
BANASIAK then interviewed with EPSTEIN about 2-3 days later. He interviewed
with EPSTEIN in his office on Madison Avenue. It was about a 20 minute
interview. They had told BANASIAK that the job opportunity is in Florida.
Sometime later BANASIAK receives a call from the agency telling him that he
got the job. He takes his belongings and moves to Florida. BANASKIAK lives
in a small house on EPSTEIN's property. This house had about 3 bedrooms.
BANASIAK lived there by himself.
Investiptionon 10/19/2021 at West Palm Beach, Florida, United States (In Person)
File# 50D-NY-3027571 Datedrafted 10/26/2021
by
This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the moµ" ty of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents arc nor
to be distributed outside your agency.
EFTA00040278
FD-302a (Rev. 5-8-10)
50D-NY-3027571
ComthuationafFD-302of (U) Interview of JANUSZ BANASIAK on 10/19/2021 ins, 2 of 7
BANASIAK's job was to make sure the house was ready for when they arrived.
He would make sure the pool was clean, would garden, shop, buy flowers and
clean windows. BANASIAK would drive EPSTEIN and his assistants including
MAXWELL.
When BANASIAK started working for EPSTEIN, there was a manual. He doesn't
remember who gave it to him but he did read it. The manual explains how to
r r the house. There was also another person working named
NO -
had mentioned something to BANASIAK about what EPSTEIN likes but most
of the information BANASIAK got was from MAXWELL. MAXWELL tells BANASIAK
what EPSTEIN's favorite foods are, what flowers he likes, where to buy
groceries, how to answer the phone and what he likes.
BANASIAK remembers meeting with the FBI previously and he gave them the
receipts of purchases he made for the house using petty cash.
It was either MAXWELL or the accountant that told BANASIAK how to use the
petty cash. BANASIAK would remove money from the bank for gas, groceries
and such ($2000 at a time). BANASIAK would make a report on the computer of
all the expenses. BANASIAK was taught how to do this when he first got
hired. After he spends the $2000 BANASIAK would take out another $2000
cash. This was prior to them moving to credit card purchases.
BANASIAK IS SHOWN A COPY OF THE HOUSEHOLD MANUAL.
BANASIAK states "Yes i recognize this, this is the manual that I mentioned
to you guys." BANASIAK states this is what he had previously described to
"you" over the phone. BANASIAK
read this on his first day while in bed. BANASIAK does not remember if it
was a bound book. BANASIAK thinks it may have just been paper like this and
stapled together. BANASIAK recognizes the text in the manual, for example
how to answer the phone and how to maintain the bathrooms.
EPSTEIN did not answer the phones. MAXWELL tells BANASIAK to answer the
phones and what to say. BANASIAK is told to introduce himself and say this
is EPSTEIN residence. BANASIAK is not allowed to tell that person on the
phone if EPSTEIN is there or not. BANASIAK would take a message and then
write it down in a message book. If it was a short message BANASIAK would
write it down right away while still on the phone. If it was a long message
BANASIAK might write it after he hangs up. Either way the message was to be
EFTA00040279
FD-302a (Rev. 5-8-10)
50D-NY-3027571
ComthuationafFD-302of (U) Interview of JANUSZ BANASIAK on 10/19/2021 mg, 3 of 7
written right away and never the next day.
BANASIAK IS THEN SHOWN MESSAGE PADS
31E-MM-108062 ITEM #2 1B1-2A (government exhibit 1)
BANASIAK states this is the message book that they would write all the
messages in when people call.
BANASIAK recognized his handwriting and signature on the following messages:
2/2/05 2,3,4
2/5/05 2
2/13/05 3,4
2/16/05 1,2
2/18/05 2,4
2/24/05 1,2
31E-MM-108062 ITEM #2 1B1-2C (government exhibit 3)
BANASIAK does not recognize his handwriting in this book.
31E-MM-108062 1B2-36 (government exhibit 4)
BANASIAK recognized his handwriting and signature on the following messages:
2/4/05 2,3,4
2/4/05 1(_),2,3,4
2/12/05 3,4
2/15/04 1,2,3
2/22/05 1,2,3,4
EFTA00040280
FD-302a (Rev. 5-8-10)
SOD-NY-3027571
ComthuationafFD-302of (U) Interview of JANUSZ BANASIAK a 10/19/2021 jig, 4 of 7
2/26/05 3
2/28/05 1,2,3,4
2/28/05 2
3/1/05 3
3/5/05 1,3
3/8/05 1,2,3,4
3/9/05 1 ,2,3,4
2/18/05 1(DR GARECKI),2,4
3/18/05 2 4
3/22/05 3,4
3/29/05 1,2,3,4
4/1/05 1,2,3,4
4/10/05 1,2,3,4
4/10/05 1 ,2,3,4
4/11/05 1,2,3,4
4/20/05 1,3,4
5/7/05 1,2,4
5/5/05 2,3
5/21/05 1,2,3,4
5/23/05 1,2,3,4
5/29/05 1,2,3
6/10/05 1,2,4
6/12/05 1,3
EFTA00040281
FD-302a (Rev. 5-8-10)
50D-NY-3027571
ComthuationafFD-302of (U) Interview of JANUSZ BANASIAK a 10/19/2021 mg, 5 of 7
6/18/05 3,4
6/22/05 1,2,3,4
7/1/05 1
7/7/05 1,2,4
7/17/05 1,2,3,4
7/23/05 1,3,4
8/15/05 1,2,4
8/18/05 2,4
8/20/05 1,2,3,4
8/20/05 1=2,3,4
9/3/05 1,2,3,4
When EPSTEIN would arrive with the girls BANASIAK would try to give them
space or privacy so he wouldn't answer as many phone calls during that time.
BANASIAK started working for EPSTEIN in 2005 and stopped in 2017.
BANASIAK is asked if he ever learned that there was an investigation into
EPSTEIN.
BANASIAK states that one day police showed up with a search warrant at the
house. That's when BANASIAK learned that there was an investigation.
BANASIAK was sitting at his computer in the home on the property that he was
living in. He saw 4-5 guys show up through the window. They stepped in and
introduced themselves, showed and read BANASIAK the search warrant. They
told him they had to search the house. BANASIAK was present for the
search. There was also a designer for the house present as well. They put
everyone aside during the search. BANASIAK then learned what EPSTEIN was
accused of in the newspapers.
BANASIAK lived in that small house on the property until 2017. BANASIAK was
EFTA00040282
FD-302a (Rev. 5-8-10)
SOD-NY-3027571
ComthuationafFD-302of (U) Interview of JANUSZ BANASIAK a 10/19/2021 jag, 6 of 7
asked if he ever came to understand what was going on with EPSTEIN's case.
BANASIAK remembers that EPSTEIN wasn't present on the day of the search
warrant. BANASIAK called the New York office. They called him back and
wanted BANASIAK to deliver the warrant papers to EPSTEIN's lawyer. BANASIAK
believes he called after the warrant was done because police asked them to
not make any calls.
After the warrant, BANASIAK learned about what EPSTEIN was accused of in the
papers and on TV. BANASIAK never talked to EPSTEIN about it.
EPSTEIN didn't talk very friendly with the staff. If EPSTEIN wanted
something to be done in the house he would tell the office and then they
would tell BANASIAK.
EPSTEIN spent the whole year traveling from one house to another (New York,
New Mexico, Paris and Florida). EPSTEIN never stayed in Palm Beach for more
than a week. After the warrant, they renovated the house. They rebuilt the
walls and floor and EPSTEIN was not there during this time which was about
6-8 months. BANASIAK did not talk to EPSTEIN during this time. BANASIAK
thought maybe EPSTEIN was in New York or other places.
EPSTEIN showed up one day to appear in court in Palm Beach. This is the
time BANASIAK saw him after the warrant. Since then BANASIAK learns that
EPSTEIN pleads guilty and goes to jail. BANASIAK had picked EPSTEIN up at
the airport. EPSTEIN stayed for 2-3 days prior to his court date. BANASIAK
knew he was going to court because BANASIAK drove him to the court.
BANASIAK read in the news that EPSTEIN plead guilty to solicitation of
underage prostitution. BANASIAK was shocked when he learned this.
BANASIAK has not seen anything that what EPSTEIN was accused of. BANASIAK
knew they were coming and going but didn't see anyone being forced. If he
would have known something was going on he would have said something.
BANASIAK thought about changing his job. He even looked and called around.
BANASIAK thought it was better to stay than to find another job. There
wasn't a lot of work for BANASIAK to do with EPSTEIN because he was in
jail. As time went on BANASIAK couldn't find anything better to work.
BANASIAK was disappointed with EPSTEIN in what he was accused of. BANASIAK
thinks it was wrong but he was settled down with his situation. BANASIAK
started at $65,000 and got raises every year. After EPSTEIN got arrested,
EFTA00040283
FD-302a (Rev. 5-8-10)
50D-NY-3027571
ComthuationafFD-302of (U) Interview of JANUSZ BANASIAK a 10/19/2021 ins, 7 of 7
BANASIAK was told EPSTEIN cut 10% from everyone's pay. After EPSTEIN
finished his sentence, he did not raise the employees back 10%. BANASIAK
then seriously considered changing his job but nothing came up.
The household manual was maybe given to BANASIAK by someone in the house but
he is not sure who. BANASIAK doesn't know who wrote it. BANASIAK shared
this manual with his coworkers.
BANASIAK IS THEN SHOWN THE CHECKLISTS WITHIN THE HOUSEHOLD MANUAL
BANASIAK recognizes the date and the signature portion. BANASIAK does not
remember if he was ever asked to fill these out.
BANASIAK remembers a copy of the manual being in the house but he is not
sure where it was kept.
EFTA00040284
DataSet-10
Unknown
29 pages
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 1 of 29
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.:
M.J.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN and
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,M, 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, (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.
EFTA01158977
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD 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, is currently a citizen ofNew York, where she currently resides.
8. At all times material, the Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and 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.
II. 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
EFTA01158978
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD 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 Defendant Jean Luc Brunel,
Ghislaine Maxwell, Leslie Groff, Adriana Ross. 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
EFTA01158979
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD 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
EFTA01158980
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD 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 Kellen 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.c. 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
EFTA01158981
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD 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 5'h amendment rights, they would hide behind the 5'h 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 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
EFTA01158982
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD 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 Defendan
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
Mand 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 Plauniff
upstairs to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's large bathroom, where Defendant set up the
7
EFTA01158983
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 8 of 29
massage table and showed Plaintiff different massage lotions to use. Defendant then 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 Plaintiffs 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
EFTA01158984
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD 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
EFTA01158985
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD 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
EFTA01158986
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 11 of 29
conspirators and Leslie Groff, Defendant Epstein agreed to admit that
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 pan 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. and to
many other similarly-situated girls whom he abused. and these other girls are creditors of
Epstein, in that have filed and can file tort 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 toMand 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. and 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
EFTA01158987
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD 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 fromMand 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 prevent. 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 and 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 ■and 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 301 East 66 Street, in New York City, where certain of
his or his Criminal Enterprise associates live or reside, including Jean Luc Brunel,M
12
EFTA01158988
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09:1712010 Page 13 of 29
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 Bcar 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= adopts and =lieges 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 es 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
EFTA01158989
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on F LSD 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 PlaintiffEwill 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 1 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
EFTA01158990
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD 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 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 III
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TORTIOUS ASSAULT OR 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 PlaintiffM
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 Plaintiff ■ 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
EFTA01158991
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD 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 ANaPURSUANT
TO 18 USC 42255 IN VIOLATION OF VARIOUS ENUMERATED OFFENSES
CONTAINED WITHIN THAT FEDERAL STATUTE
77. Plaintarn adopts and realleges paragraphs I through 60 above.
78. The allegations contained herein in Counts IV through XXIII are separate and distinct
legal remedies.
16
EFTA01158992
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD 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 an'
(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■ to engage in prostitution, in violation of title IS, 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■ 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 ■ to engage in
prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b);
17
EFTA01158993
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD 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 PlaintiffM in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b).
82. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned criminal offenses enumerated in
Title IS, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff,
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.
These injuries are permanent in nature and Plaintifftwill 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
EFTA01158994
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 19 of 29
COUNT X February 2003
COUNT XI March 2003
COUNT XII April 2003
COUNT XIII May 2003
COUNT XIV June 2003
COUNT XV July 2003
COUNT XVI August 2003
COUNT XVII September 2003
COUNT XVIII October 2003
COUNT XIX November 2003
COUNT XX December 2003
COUNT XXI January 2004
COUNT XXII February 2004
COUNT XXIII March 2004
WHEREFORE, with regard to each and every one of these counts, Plaintiff, IN
demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, for compensatory damages, loss of
income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, attorney's fees, and such other and
further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues
triable as of right by a jury.
COUNT XXIV
Civil Remedy for Criminal Practices
84. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs I through 60 above and for the purposes of this count
incorporates and alleges the RICO Statement that has been filed contemporaneously herewith as
Exhibit "A."
19
EFTA01158995
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09 17 2010 Page 20 of 29
85. The allegations contained herein in Count XXIV are a separate and distinct legal remedy
brought pursuant to Florida Statute 772.104(1) and (2).
86. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, was associated with an enterprise, a group of individuals
associated in fact although not a legal entity, which was comprised of at least Defendant Jeffrey
Epstein, Leslie Groff, Jean Luc Brunel, Ghislaine Maxwell, and
(and likely many other yet unknown persons); Defendant Epstein participated in this enterprise,
or conspired or endeavored to so participate, through a pattern of criminal activity in violation of
Florida Statutes §772.103(3)-(4), as further outlined in detail in the RICO statement filed with
this court.
87. This enterprise was separate and distinct from Epstein himself and had a definite
hierarchical structure. Epstein served informally but effectively as the leader, C.E.O. or "boss"
of this organization similar to the way an experienced mob boss runs his organized crime family,
directing his underlings how to recruit and procure underage girls for his sexual activities and the
sexual activities of others, developing the use of slang or code words to be used to discuss the
illegal activities of the organization, designing a plan or scheme to gain the cooperation of
underage minor females, developing methods and techniques to otherwise avoid detection from
law enforcement including making large charitable donations to law enforcement agencies,
powerful politicians, businessmen and world leaders, associating with powerful social people
and highly influential politicians and attorneys, gathering information to blackmail or extort
powerful people, devising a plan to attack the credibility and character of anyone that dare unveil
the illegal operations of the enterprise and to take an oath to remain silent and/or lie when
confronted by law enforcement about the illegal operations and activities of the criminal
organization. Epstein's key "lieutenant" in the local Palm Beach branch of the National
20
EFTA01158996
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 21 of 29
organization was who served as both his scheduler and a recruiter/procurer of the girls.
also served as a recruiter and helped Epstein satisfy his criminal sexual desires by,
on occasion, directly participating in sexual abuse and prostitution of the minor girls. Epstein
also used otherwise-legitimate business activities to help further the purpose of the criminal
enterprise. These apparently legitimate activities provided "cover" for Epstein and his associates
to commit the crimes. Epstein and his associates maintained the appearance of running an
upstanding investment business, as well as other legitimate businesses with connections to
modeling agencies and other powerful business and political people, to discourage the minor
girls from reporting the abuse to law enforcement. Ghislane Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel
helped to provide "cover" by creating the impression that legitimate modeling opportunities were
available for the girls. There are many other known and unknown associates of the criminal
organization, that worked throughout the country and possibly internationally, who performed
functions to perpetuate the criminal activities of the organization.
88. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein participated in this enterprise through a pattern of criminal
activity in that he engaged in at least two incidents of criminal activity, as defined and required
in Florida Statute 772.102 and as described below, that have the same or similar intents, results,
accomplices, victims, or methods of commission and are not isolated incidents.
89. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein engaged in criminal activity by committing, attempting to
commit, conspiring to commit or soliciting, coercing or intimidating another person to commit
one or more of the following predicate acts as outlined and defined in Florida Statute 772.102:
(a) Procuring for prostitution, or causing to be prostituted, any person who is
under the age of 18 yews in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 796.03;
(b) Acts of battery in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 784;
21
EFTA01158997
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 22 of 29
(c) Forcing, compelling or coercing another to become a prostitute in
violation ofFlorida Statutes Chapter 796.04;
(d) knowingly recruiting, enticing, harboring, transporting, providing or
otherwise obtaining by any means a person, knowing that coercion would be used to
cause that person to engage in prostitution in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter
796.045;
(e) tampering with a witness in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 914.22;
(f) altering, destroying, removing, or concealing records or documents or
other evidence with the purpose to impair its verity or availability in violation of Florida
Statutes Chapter 918.13;
(g) maintaining a place (or more accurately "places") for the purpose of
lewdness or prostitution; offering or securing another for the purpose of prostitution or
for some other lewd or indecent act; receiving persons into his Palm Beach mansion for
the purpose of prostitution or lewdness; directing, taking or transporting or agreeing to
direct take or transport persons to his Palm Beach mansion with knowledge or reasonable
belief that the purpose of such directing, taking or transporting was prostitution or
lewdness; all in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 796.07.
90. The criminal acts of Defendant Epstein occurred repeatedly over a substantial period of
time and were not isolated events.
91. Under Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's plan, scheme, and enterprise, Defendant, Jeffrey
Epstein, paid employees and underlings, including but not limited to to bring him
minor girls to his Palm Beach mansion in order for the Defendant to solicit, induce, coerce,
entice, compel or force such girls to engage in acts of prostitution and sexual misconduct with
22
EFTA01158998
Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09 17 2010 Page 23 of 29
Defendant Epstein and sometimes and to otherwise commit acts of sexual
battery thereon, and further Defendant Epstein worked in concert as part of the enterprise with
those who were free to act independently and advance their own interests, including Ghislaine
Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel, to obtain minor girls for sexual purposes.
92. Plaintiff,■ was the victim of Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's plan, scheme, and enterprise
and was so injured by reason of his violations of the provisions of s. 772.104. Plaintiff
DataSet-10
Unknown
4 pages
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE 2,
Plaintiffs
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant
I
REPLY TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO
MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION
In their Response, plaintiffs first contend that Mr. Epstein's limited motion to intervene is
not timely because they first filed their discovery requests more than a year and a half ago.
Response at 3-4. That date is wholly irrelevant for purposes of evaluating the timeliness of Mr.
Epstein's motion, as there has been no prior litigation whatsoever on the specific question, raised
by the request for limited intervention, of whether particularly identified documents are protected
from disclosure to plaintiffs by the grand jury secrecy provision of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). The
applicability of the Rule 6(e) disclosure prohibition has not "been the subject of litigation for
nearly two years." Response at 2. It has not been the subject of litigation at all. Plaintiffs state
that they did not object to Mr. Epstein's prospective motion to intervene at the remedy stage
because "the issue had not yet been subject to any litigation." Response at 2. The same is true,
however, with respect to this limited motion to intervene.
EFTA00583886
Contrary to plaintiffs' argument, Response at 4, Epstein did not wait long at all to file his
motion to intervene. On the contrary, he filed it on July 26, 2013, only one week after the
government filed its privilege log on July 19, 2013, which alerted him to the issue, as well as to
the extent to which his privacy interests in the confidentiality of secret grand July proceedings
were at issue. See Motion at 2-3.1
Plaintiffs contend that they would be prejudiced if Mr. Epstein were allowed to intervene
with respect to the Rule 6(e) issues. Response at 4. First, they contend that they would be
prejudiced because they "would be forced to file a response to additional pleadings." Id. That
intervention as of right would cause another party to have to do more work on a new issue has
never been thought to be grounds for denying a motion to intervene. In any event, the Court's
June 19, 2013, order permits only one pleading on the issue for each party, so there would be
only a single additional pleading. Second, plaintiffs contend that permitting Mr. Epstein to
intervene will "presumably" cause additional delay. Id. It will not; in his motion to intervene,
Mr. Epstein expressly committed himself to comply with the filing schedule established in the
Court's June 19, 2013, order or any further order of the Court. It will not, therefore, disrupt the
Court's schedule to permit Mr. Epstein to intervene and present his legal and factual arguments
within whatever page limitations2 and filing deadlines are imposed by the Court.
Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 1999), on which plaintiffs rely, Response at 3, is
wholly inapposite. In that case, the prospective intervenors sought to intervene as full parties to
the action after the case had been ongoing for a substantial time and numerous substantive issues
had already been litigated.
2 On August 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Ordinary Briefing Schedule and Ordinary Page
limits to Respond to Government Privilege Assertions, in which they asked that the Court
expand the 7-page limit imposed by the Court's June 19, 2013, order, to the ordinary 20-page
limit. Doc. 218.
EFTA00583887
Plaintiffs also contend that Mr. Epstein has failed to establish that he has an interest in the
confidentiality of the grand jury materials at issue. Response at 4-5. On the contrary, he has
plainly done so, as even a facial review of the government's privilege log would demonstrate.
The grand jury secrecy provision exists for the very purpose of protecting persons who were, as
Mr. Epstein was, the subject/target of a grand jury investigation but were not ultimately the
subject of a criminal indictment. See Motion at 3-4. Rule 6(e) gives Mr. Epstein a cognizable
interest in opposing the release of any information pertaining to matters which occurred before
the grand juries which conducted the criminal investigation of him.3 Indeed, the very reason that
plaintiffs want the information is that the grand jury was conducting an investigation of Mr.
Epstein. To the extent that any grand jury materials do not relate to the grand jury investigation
of Mr. Epstein, they are entirely irrelevant to plaintiffs' case. Specific entries in the
government's privilege log also bear out Mr. Epstein's interest in the matter, as they specifically
refer to Mr. Epstein, companies and accounts owned by him that were the subjects of grand jury
subpoenas, his travels, phone calls, and meetings, witness testimony as to his alleged conduct,
and a wide array of additional materials that have historically been protected from disclosure by
Rule 6(e).4 Contrary to plaintiffs' argument, Mr. Epstein has a very real and demonstrable
interest in preventing disclosure of grand jury materials.
3 Plaintiffs scoff at Mr. Epstein's asserting the Rule 6(e) disclosure prohibition as to "File folder
'PNY Technologies Compact Flash SW," Response at 4, but they neglect to add the remainder of
the entry: "containing copies of a sealed search warrant application, warrant, and supporting
documents." Privilege Log (Doc. 212-1) at I. PNY is a company which manufactures flash
drives, among other products. See www.pny.com. This particular flash drive contains materials
relating to a search warrant, the validity of which has never been litigated, apparently directed
against the property or computers of Mr. Epstein, in which he plainly has an interest.
4 See, e.g., Privilege Log (DE2I2-1) at 2 (documents responsive to grand jury subpoena served
on JP Morgan Chase); 3 ("Epstein corporate records," "JEGE & Hyperion"); 4 ("indictment
preparation binder," "witness/victim" interviews, flight manifests); 5 ("Summary of Sexual
Activity," chart entitled "Brought to Epstein's house," "summary of evidence related to one
victim/witness"); 6 ("PBPD Investigative File," "file folder bearing name of victim/witness
EFTA00583888
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, and the reasons set forth in Mr. Epstein's Motion to
intervene, that motion should be granted.
containing meta-analysis chart showing telephone calls, travel, and grand jury materials relevant
to possible charges," Jet Blue records); 7 ("Lawsuits Involving Epstein Corp's," "Message
Pads"); 8 ("Police Reports & PC Affidavit," witness interview and grand jury transcript, "meta-
analysis chart and 302's of victim witnesses used in preparing indictment package," documents
responsive to grand jury subpoena served on Bear Stearns); 9 (two listings of "File folder bearing
name of victim/witness containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related
to that victim witness for indictment preparation"); 10 ("File Folder entitled "Jane Doe #4
containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness
for indictment preparation," "Epstein cell phone records," "File Folder entitled "Jane
Doe #12 containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that
victim/witness for indictment preparation"); 11 (indictment package, flight logs); 12 ("chart
prepared at direction of AUSA, containing victim names, identifying information, summary of
activity, and other information relevant to indictment," "most recent indictment," "File Folder
entitled Jane Doe #5 containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to
that victim/witness for indictment preparation," same as to Jane Doe #4); 13 (Tile Folder
entitled "Jane Doe #6 containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to
that victim/witness for indictment preparation," same as to Jane Does #7 and #8); 14 ("File
Folder entitled "Jane Doe #9 containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data
related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation," same as to Jane Does #1, #2, #12 and
#13); 15 ("File Folder entitled "Jane Doe #3 containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and
grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation"); 17 ("original proposed
indictment"); 18 ("draft indictments," "signed indictment," overt acts list for indictment
preparation); 19 ("Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas,"
"Affidavit of Roy Black, Esq. in Support of Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash
Grand Jury Subpoenas," "United States' Response to Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and
to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas, " Declaration of Joseph Recarey (in support of United States'
response)," "Ex Parte Declaration Number One in Support of United States' Response to Motion
to Quash Subpoenas"); 20 ("Ex Parte Declaration Number Two in Support of United States'
Response to Motion to Quash Subpoenas," "Supplement to Ex Parte Declaration Number One in
Support of United States' Response to Motion to Quash," indictment preparation materials); 21
("complete indictment package," "indictment preparation binder"); 23 ("complete indictment
package").
EFTA00583889
giuffre-maxwell
Unknown
31 pages
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
________________________________/
PLAINTIFF, VIRGINIA GIUFFRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO IMPROPER OBJECTIONS
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011
David Boies
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Ellen Brockman
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
575 Lexington Ave
New York, New York 10022
(212) 446-2300
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................... ii
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................................1
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................3
A. Legal Standard...............................................................................................................3
B. Maxwell’s General Objections Fail...............................................................................4
C. Maxwell’s Specific Objections Fail. .............................................................................8
1. Request No. 1 .......................................................................................................8
a. Maxwell’s Response....................................................................................8
b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ....................................................................................................9
2. Request No. 3. ......................................................................................................9
a. Maxwell’s Response....................................................................................9
b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ..................................................................................................10
3. Request No. 6. ....................................................................................................10
a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................10
b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ..................................................................................................11
4. Request No. 7. ....................................................................................................12
a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................12
b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ..................................................................................................12
5. Requests Nos. 8 and 33. .....................................................................................13
a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................13
b. Request No. 33. .........................................................................................13
i
c. Maxwell’s Response to Request No. 33....................................................14
d. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery...................................................................................................14
6. Request Nos. 10 and 11. .....................................................................................15
a. Request No. 10. .........................................................................................15
b. Maxwell’s Response to Request No. 10....................................................15
c. Request No. 11. .........................................................................................15
d. Maxwell’s Response to Request No. 11....................................................15
e. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery...................................................................................................16
7. Request No. 15. ..................................................................................................16
a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................16
b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ..................................................................................................17
8. Request No. 17. ..................................................................................................17
a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................17
b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ..................................................................................................18
9. Request Nos. 21 – 24 .........................................................................................19
a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................19
b. Request No. 22. .........................................................................................19
c. Maxwell’s Response to Request No. 22....................................................19
d. Request No. 23. .........................................................................................19
e. Maxwell’s Response to Request No. 23....................................................19
f. Request No. 24. .........................................................................................20
g. Maxwell’s Response to Request No. 24....................................................20
ii
h. Maxwell’s Objections To Requests 21-24 Fail, As The Requests Seek
Relevant Discovery....................................................................................20
10. Request No. 32. ..................................................................................................21
a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................21
b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ..................................................................................................21
11. Request No. 34. ..................................................................................................22
a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................22
b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ..................................................................................................22
12. Request No. 37. ..................................................................................................23
a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................23
b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ..................................................................................................23
13. Request No. 39. ..................................................................................................24
a. Maxwell’s Response..................................................................................24
b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, As The Request Seeks Relevant
Discovery ..................................................................................................24
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................24
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Am. Rock Salt Co., LLC v. Norfolk S. Corp.,
228 F.R.D. 426 (W.D.N.Y. 2004) ...............................................................................................6
Edwards v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
No. 95 CIV. 5356 (SAS), 1996 WL 432472 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 1996).......................................1
Gateway Logistics, Inc. v. Smay,
302 P. 3d 235 (Colo. 2013).................................................................................................passim
International Mining Co., Inc. v. Allen and Co.,
567 F. Supp.777 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) ...............................................................................................2
Ottoson v. SMBC Leasing and Finance, Inc.,
2015 WL 4597542 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2015)..............................................................................1
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fayda.
No. 14CIV9792WHPJCF, 2015 WL 7871037 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2015)..............................3, 23
Stinson v. City of New York,
2015 WL 4610422 (S.D.N.Y.) July 23, 2015) ............................................................................1
Zorn v. Howe,
276 A.D.2d 51, 716 N.Y.S. 2d 128 (2000)..................................................................................7
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC,
220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).................................................................................................7
Statutes
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 ......................................................................................................................3, 22
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 ........................................................................................................................4, 8
Fed. R. Evid. 501 ....................................................................................................................passim
iv
Plaintiff Virginia L. Giuffre, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submit
this Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Response to Request Nos. 1-39 and to
Compel Documents Subject to Improper Objections Including Refusals to Produce Documents
from Highly Relevant Time Periods. For the reasons set forth below, this Court should grant
Plaintiff’s Motion in its entirety.
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff first served her request for production of documents on defendant on October 27,
2015. Now, almost four (4) months later, and even after this Court denied defendant’s attempts
to stay discovery and directed a response, defendant is still refusing to produce highly relevant
documents. Defendant is attempting to grant herself a de facto stay of discovery, without Court
approval, by refusing to produce documents or generally comply with a party’s clear and
unequivocal discovery obligations1. Indeed, in response to thirty-eight (38) requests for
production, the defendant has chosen to produce two emails.2 This represents a willful disregard
of her discovery obligations, something this Court should not condone.
“Although not unlimited, relevance, for purposes of discovery, is an extremely broad
concept.” Ottoson v. SMBC Leasing and Finance, Inc., (Sweet, J.) 2015 WL 4597542 at * 2
(S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2015) (granting motion to compel) (internal quotations omitted); Stinson v.
City of New York, (Sweet, J.), 2015 WL 4610422 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2015) (granting in part
motion to compel production).
In the Second Circuit, courts have dismissed actions where a party has demonstrated
willful disregard for its discovery obligations. Edwards v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 95 CIV. 5356
1
Maxwell also waited four (4) months to produce her initial Rule 26 Disclosures which she just served on February
24, 2016.
2
Notably, Maxwell even refuses to produce the defamatory press releases from her communications with her press
agent Ross Gow, which are at the heart of this case.
1
(SAS), 1996 WL 432472, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 1996). See also International Mining Co.,
Inc. v. Allen and Co., (Sweet, J.), 567 F.Supp 777 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (failure to produce
documents and supply adequate answers to interrogatories without justifiable excuse warranted
the dismissal of the complaint). The blatant nature of the defendant’s failure to participate in
discovery is akin to the conduct for which the Second Circuit has awarded sanctions.
This case turns on whether or not Maxwell defamed Ms. Giuffre when she called Ms.
Giuffre’s account of her sexual abuse “obvious lies.” Ms. Giuffre intends to establish that
Maxwell’s defamatory statement was untrue, and that Ms. Giuffre was telling the truth. To
prove the truth of her sexual abuse, Ms. Giuffre seeks discovery of documents evidencing her
sexual abuse and sexual trafficking by Maxwell and her associates, including convicted sex
offender Jeffrey Epstein. Therefore, documents evidencing Ms. Giuffre’s encounters with
Maxwell, and documents evidencing Maxwell’s communications with her co-conspirators, are
plainly relevant and discoverable. For example, Request 6 seeks documents relating to
Maxwell’s communications with Sarah Kellen. At a prior deposition, Sarah Kellen invoked her
Fifth Amendment privilege when asked:
Q. Would you agree with me that Ghislaine Maxwell provides underage girls to Mr.
Epstein for sex?
***
A. Upon the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege.
Q. Take a look at what we marked as Exhibit 10. Do you recognize the two people in
that photograph?
A. On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege.
Q. Would you agree with me that’s Ghislaine Maxwell on the right and Jeffrey Epstein
on the left?
A. On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege.
***
Q. Do you recognize the young lady shown in Exhibit 11?
A. On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege.
Q. Do you agree with me that the young girl shown in Exhibit 11 was recruited by
Ghislaine Mawell for sexual activity with Jeffrey Esptein?
A. On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege.
2
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, March 24, 2010 Deposition Transcript of Sarah Kellen at 100-
103.
Clearly, communications Maxwell had with Sarah Kellen are highly relevant to
establishing Maxwell’s involvement in trafficking underage girls. Yet, Maxwell is refusing to
produce any communications with Sarah Kellen.
Moreover, defendant Maxwell has admitted that non-privileged,3 relevant documents
exist. She is simply refusing to produce them. See Declaration of Sigrid McCawley
(“McCawley Decl.”) at Exhibit 2, Defendant Maxwell’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for
Production Requests Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 32, 33, 34, and 37.
Indeed, it is undisputed that Maxwell spent many years traveling with Ms. Giuffre. And, for
years thereafter, Maxwell continued her association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Ms. Giuffre is entitled to those documents in discovery because they go directly to the claim at
issue in this litigation. Therefore, this Court should compel her to produce them.
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a), a party may request that another party
produce documents in its possession as long as the documents are within the scope of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b), which allows for broad discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Information within this scope of discovery need not be
admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Relevance is still to be “construed broadly to
encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear
on” any party's claim or defense. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fayda, No.
3
Ms. Maxwell’s privilege claims all fail as addressed in Ms. Giuffre’s Motion to Compel Production
Based on Improper Claim of Privilege.
3
14CIV9792WHPJCF, 2015 WL 7871037, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2015) (granting motion to
compel). If the opposing party objects to producing the documents, the party seeking production
can file a motion to compel with the court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Against this backdrop
of broad discovery rights, Maxwell has refused to produce responsive documents.
B. Maxwell’s General Objections Fail
The centerpiece of Maxwell’s general objections is her disingenuous limitation of her
discovery responses to a short window of time that she has unilaterally selected. Maxwell
wrongfully attempts to limit discovery to the month of December 30, 2014 – January 31, 2015
when her defamatory statement was issued and 1999 – 20024. Maxwell’s time period limitation
clearly violates both the letter and spirit of Rule 26. For example, a communication by
Maxwell’s press agent regarding the plaintiff is just as relevant if it was made on February 1,
2015 as the one that was made on January 3, 2015 and it is clearly discoverable. These
communications with her press agent are key documents in this case, as the sole claim concerns
Ms. Maxwell defaming Ms. Giuffre in the press, yet Maxwell has arbitrarily refused to produce
highly relevant discovery.
The abuse at issue in this case is alleged to have started in or around 1999 and there are
relevant documents and communications from that point to the present in that Maxwell
continued to associate with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein up until at least 2015 as
evidenced by her privilege log. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Maxwell’s Privilege Log.
Accordingly, plaintiff defined the relevant period for purposes of her requests for production as
1999 – present. While that may seem like a substantial period of time, all of the publically
4
Maxwell refers to her shortened time period as “the Relevant Time Period as defined in Paragraph 15”
of her objections. To be clear, Ms. Giuffre’s references herein to production for the “Relevant Time
Period” refer to the Relevant Time Period of 1999 to the present as defined in her original requests for
production.
4
available documents demonstrate that the whole period is highly relevant to the sexual abuse
allegations. For example, the flight logs demonstrate that Maxwell was flying on Jeffrey
Epstein’s planes over 360 times from 1999 – 2005. In addition, Maxwell flew with plaintiff
when she was a minor child in 2000 on Jeffrey Epstein’s planes. The flight logs reveal that
Maxwell continued to actively travel with Jeffrey Epstein and other unidentified “female”
passengers through at least as late as September 5, 2005.5 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4.
Moreover, there is critical activity relevant to the abuse allegations happening in the mid-
2000s as evidenced by the Palm Beach Police report that identified over 30 underage girls who
were being victimized during that time period. In addition, house staff identifies Maxwell as the
person in charge during this time period. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Alfredo Rodriguez
Deposition Transcript at 24-25.
The years of the mid to late 2000s are also highly relevant because that is during the time
when convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein entered his plea deal with the government. Law
enforcement conducted a trash pull from Jeffrey Epstein’s residence in Florida and uncovered his
house message pads. The message pads reveal that in 2004, Maxwell was coordinating
“training” with underage girls as indicated by the redactions in the message pads. See
McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, SAO 2830. Maxwell was also organizing “massages” for Epstein
in 2004 with underage girls and indicating which girls she had lined-up on given days. See
McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, SAO 02841.
Plaintiff here received a Victim Notification Letter on September 9, 2008. See
McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7. In 2009, an attorney sought Maxwell’s deposition in connection
5
Only a fraction of the flight logs were made publically available. Therefore there are likely other records
in Maxwell’s possession, custody and control that would demonstrate Maxwell traveling with underage
females but to date she has refused to produce this information and indeed is limiting her responses to a
very narrow window of time.
5
with various sexual abuse allegations and Maxwell dodged the deposition claiming that her
mother was ill and she would be traveling outside the country with no plans of returning.
Despite this claim to avoid her deposition, she then was photographed thereafter at Chelsea
Clinton’s wedding in Rhinebeck, New York. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 8
Maxwell Deposition Notice; Subpoena and Cancellation Payment Notice, and January 13, 2015
Daily Mail Article with photograph. In 2011, Maxwell started issuing press statements through
her agent Ross Gow. The offending defamatory statement was issued on January 3, 2015. As
demonstrated by the timeline, discussed above, any documents that Maxwell has from the period
from 1999 to the present are highly relevant. Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that this Court
direct Maxwell to produce all responsive documents for the time period from 1999 to the
present.6
Defendant Maxwell has also asserted fundamentally improper general objections which
should be overruled. Am. Rock Salt Co., LLC v. Norfolk S. Corp., 228 F.R.D. 426, 432
(W.D.N.Y. 2004) (“generalized objections that discovery requests are vague, overly broad, or
unduly burdensome are not acceptable, and will be overruled.”).
Maxwell’s general objection to producing material that implicates “privacy interests” is
equally misplaced. Maxwell does not have a “privacy interest” in the illegal sexual abuse and
trafficking of Ms. Giuffre and other minors, nor does she have a “privacy interest” in the
communications with her co-conspirators, including convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein and
6
Maxwell has asserted that she cannot find documents for Requests Nos.1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 14, 35 and 38.
The Requests are set forth in Appendix A. To the extent that these requests incorporate her General
Objection to the Relevant Period articulated in paragraph 15 of her Objections, Plaintiff requests that this
Court require Ms. Maxwell to search for and produce any responsive documents from the 1999 to the
present that may have been excluded from Maxwell’s original search for the reasons stated above.
6
others.7 See Zorn v. Howe, 276 A.D.2d 51, 57, 716 N.Y.S.2d 128, 133 (2000) (finding no
legitimate privacy interest in illegal activity). Unsurprisingly, Maxwell cites no authority that
would shield the production of those documents.8 These documents are responsive and relevant.
The only proper objection Maxwell can make is an assertion of her Fifth Amendment privilege.
Failing that assertion, she must produce them.
Furthermore, Maxwell claims that “prior to this litigation” she has “long had a practice of
deleting emails after they have been read.” First, Ms. Giuffre is entitled to a forensic examination
of Maxwell’s personal computers and devices to recover deleted emails and to discovery when
and if Maxwell has performed a “swipe” of her computers/devices to permanently destroy
deleted emails.
Second, in her Motion to Dismiss, Maxwell claims that in both 2011 and 2015 she
anticipated litigation against tabloids. Specifically, she stated that in 2011, “litigation . . . was
forthcoming,” and in 2015, she made her press release “’pertinent to’ anticipated good-faith
litigation.” When litigation is anticipated, it is incumbent on the party to preserve documents.
See Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (“Once a party
reasonably anticipates litigation, it must ... ensure the preservation of relevant documents.”)
Additionally, if Maxwell purposefully destroyed documents in 2015, this Court can instruct the
jury to made an adverse inference against Maxwell or enter a default judgment in favor of Ms.
7
Non-attorney Maxwell claims that her communications with co-conspirator, convicted pedophile, and
non-attorney Jeffrey Epstein are privileged, a specious claim that is challenged in Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel for Improper Assertion of Privilege.
8
Maxwell cites a non-controlling and inapposite Colorado case. In Gateway, the moving party sought to
inspect personal computers, smartphones, and other devices belonging to the defendant and his wife, who
was a non-party to the case. The court remanded the decision on the motion to compel that discovery to
the trial court, requiring that the trial court make findings of fact balancing the defendants’ privacy
interest with the plaintiffs’ need for the information sought as required by another case. It did not hold
that such materials were not discoverable. Notably, Maxwell does not cite to any New York case in
opposing this request, nor does she cite to a case from any other jurisdiction that is at all on point.
7
Giuffre. See Rule 37(e)(2)(b),(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. (“If electronically stored information that
should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party
failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through
additional discovery, the court . . . upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive
another party of the information’s use in the litigation may . . . instruct the jury that it may or
must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or dismiss the action or enter a
default judgment.”) Similarly, Maxwell was served with a subpoena decus tecum on September
21, 2009 seeking her testimony in relations to Epstein’s underage sex ring. See McCawley Decl.
at Composite Exhibit 8, 2009 Subpoena issued to Maxwell. Maxwell avoided that deposition by
falsely claiming to be out of the country (she was, instead, photographed at Chelsey Clinton’s
New York wedding). See Composite Exhibit 8. Pursuant to that subpoena, Maxwell was placed
on notice that her documents were relevant to pending litigation. All of these events triggering
her duty to preserve documents center on Maxwell’s role in Epstein’s sex crimes; therefore, all
of the documents she had a duty to preserve are relevant to this litigation. Defendant Maxwell
must produce these documents or explain to the Court when and why they were destroyed.
C. Maxwell’s Specific Objections Fail
1. Request No. 1: All documents relating to communications with Jeffery
Epstein from 1999 – Present.
a. Maxwell’s Response:
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Maxwell further objects
to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client
privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable
privilege.
8
Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Maxwell is withholding documents
outside of the Relevant Periods described in paragraph15, supra9, and is withholding production
of documents that are privileged pursuant to a common interest agreement.
b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, as the Request Seeks Relevant Discovery
Maxwell must produce documents for the entire Relevant Period as discussed above.
Communications with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein for whom Defendant Maxwell is
alleged to have assisted him with his sexual trafficking activities are of the highest relevance in
this case, and must be produced. Additionally, Maxwell has asserted an improper privilege with
regard to these documents, which is addressed fully in Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel for Improper
Claims of Privilege.
2. Request No. 3: All documents relating to communications with Andrew
Albert Christian Edward, Duke of York (a.k.a. Prince Andrew) from 1999 – present.
a. Maxwell’s Response:
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and calls for the
production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Maxwell further objects to this Request to the extent it
seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product
doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it
implicates her right to privacy. Gateway Logistics, Inc. v. Smay, 302 P .3d 235 (Colo.2013);
Fed.R.Evid .501.
Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Maxwell will produce non-
privileged documents responsive to this Request limited to the Relevant Periods described in
9
Maxwell’s reference to her “redefined” Relevant Period comes from paragraph 15 of her Responses and
Objections which provides: “Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction No. 1, in particular the definition of the
“Relevant Period” to include July 1999 to the present, on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Complaint at paragraph 9 purports to
describe events pertaining to Plaintiff and Defendant occurring in the years 1999 – 2002. The Complaint
also references statements attributed to Ms. Maxwell occurring in January 2015. Defining the “Relevant
Period” as July 1999 to the present” is vastly overbroad, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence, and as to certain of the Requests, is intended for the improper
purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell and it implicates her privacy rights. Thus, Ms. Maxwell
interprets the Relevant Period to be limited to 1999 – 2002 and December 30, 2014 – January 31, 2015
and objects to production of any documents outside that period, except as specifically noted.”
9
paragraph15, supra, and with private phone numbers and related information redacted. Maxwell
is withholding production of documents outside of such Relevant Periods.
b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, as the Request Seeks Relevant Discovery
Defendant Maxwell’s communications with Prince Andrew, for the entire Relevant
Period, are relevant to this litigation. Maxwell is alleged to have trafficked Ms. Giuffre to Prince
Andrew when Ms. Giuffre was a minor. Indeed, there is photographic evidence of Prince
Andrew with his arm around Virginia’s waist, standing next to Maxwell, in Maxwell’s London
residence, when Virginia was a minor child. In the one email defendant did produce in Response
to the Requests for Production, Maxwell instructs Prince Andrew to “call me” after Prince
Andrew says he needs to speak about Virginia. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9. Ms. Giuffre is
entitled to all of the communications between Maxwell and Prince Andrew not only to show the
communications between them regarding her trafficking, but also possible communications
between them, that would establish Maxwell furnishing him with other females or discussing
other individuals who may have been involved with this activity.
3. Request No. 6: All documents relating to communications with any of the
following individuals from 1999 – present: Emmy Taylor, Sarah Kellen, Eva Dubin, Glen Dubin,
Jean Luc Brunel, and Nadia Marcinkova.
a. Maxwell’s Response:
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and/or propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Maxwell.
Maxwell further objects to this Request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Maxwell is withholding production
of documents relating to communications with Nadia Marcinkova, Sarah Kellen and Eva Dubin
that are outside of the Relevant Periods described in paragraph15, supra. Maxwell has been
unable to locate any such documents relating to Ms. Marcinkova, Ms. Kellen or Ms. Dubin
within the Relevant Periods. Maxwell also has been unable to locate any such documents
responsive to this Request relating to Glen Dubin, Jean Luc Brunel or Emmy Taylor for any time
period.
10
b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, as the Request Seeks Relevant Discovery
Ms. Kellen was previously deposed regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s underage sex ring. When
asked about Maxwell’s involvement in the sex trafficking, Ms. Kellen asserted her Fifth
Amendment privileges and refused to answer. Ms. Kellen’s assertion implicates Maxwell in the
sex trafficking activity.
Q. Would you agree with me that Ghislaine Maxwell provides underage girls to Mr.
Epstein for sex?
***
A. Upon the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege.
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, March 24, 2010 Deposition Transcript of Sarah Kellen at 100-
103.
Maxwell’s communications with Ms. Kellen, at any time during the original Relevant
Period, are relevant to the sexual abuse suffered by Ms. Giuffre and others at the hands of
Maxwell, and should not be withheld. Moreover, flight logs demonstrate that Sarah Kellen and
Maxwell flew together multiple times, including with Ms. Giuffre. See McCawley Decl. at
Exhibit 4.
Similarly, Nadia Marcinkova was a co-conspirator of Maxwell and Epstein, and
communicated with them frequently as evidenced by the message pads law enforcement
retrieved from Epstein’s residence. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6. Nadia Marcinkova also
travelled on Jeffrey Epstein’s planes with Maxwell. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, flight
logs. Similarly, Emmy Taylor was Maxwell’s assistant during this time frame and also travelled
on Jeffrey Epstein’s planes with Ms. Giuffre. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4. These
communications are relevant for the entire original Relevant Period and Maxwell must produce
them.
11
Regarding Glen and Eva Dubin, flight logs demonstrate that they also travelled on Jeffrey
Epstein’s planes with Maxwell. Maxwell has acknowledged having communications with Eva
Dubin, but she is refusing to turn them over. Eva and Glen regularly placed calls to Jeffrey
Epstein and to Maxwell as evidenced by the police report trash pull of message pads. See
McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, SAO2843, SAO2984, SAO2994, SAO3004, SAO3006, and
SAO3009. Maxwell’s communications with Glen and Eva Dubin are relevant for the entire
original Relevant Period and should be produced.
4. Request No. 7: All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs or any other print or
electronic media relating to females under the age of 18 from the period of 1999 – present.
a. Maxwell’s Response:
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and/or propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Maxwell.
Maxwell further objects to this Request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Maxwell has been unable to locate
any documents responsive to this Request which relate or pertain to Plaintiff or any of the
witnesses identified by Plaintiff in her Rule 26 disclosures. Maxwell is withholding production
of other documents responsive to this Request, including things like mainstream newspapers,
magazines, videos, DVDs or other media or family photographs which contain depictions of
female children, including Maxwell herself as a child.
b. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, as the Request Seeks Relevant Discovery
To clarify, Ms. Giuffre is not seeking the depictions of children under the age of 18 that
that include Maxwell as a child or Maxwell’s relatives as children. Nor is Ms. Giuffre seeking
mainstream images that are legally available, such as in mainstream newspapers, magazines,
videos, or DVDs. Instead, Ms. Giuffre is seeking the depictions of underage girls possessed by
Maxwell. For example, Alfredo Rodriguez, a former household manager for Epstein, testified
that Maxwell kept images of naked girls on her personal computer whose identities are unknown
to Ms. Giuffre:
12
Q. “Did they appear to be doing any sexual?
A. Yes, ma’am
Q. And in these instances were there girls doing sexual things with other girls?
A. Yes, ma’am.
Q. And I’m still talking about the pictures on Maxwell’s computer.
A. Yes, ma’am.”
See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Alfredo Rodriguez August 7, 2009, Dep. Tr. at 311-312.
Accordingly, Maxwell’s depictions of females under the age of 18, goes to Ms. Giuffre’s claims
of sexual abuse and should be produced for the entire original Relevant Period. These pictures
would reveal which underage girls Maxwell was interacting with and photographing or
videotaping which is highly relevant to this case. Importantly, this request is not limited to
depictions of Ms. Giuffre or the individuals in Ms. Giuffre’s Rule 26 disclosures, as Maxwell
tries to assert in her Objection.
5. Request Nos. 8 and 33: All documents relating to your travel from the period
of 1999 – present, including but not limited to, any travel on Jeffrey Epstein’s planes,
commercial flights, helicopters, passport records, records indicating passengers traveling with
you, hotel records, and credit card receipts.
a. Maxwell’s Response:
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and/or propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Maxwell.
Maxwell further objects to this Request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it implicates her right
to privacy. Gateway Logistics, Inc. v. Smay, 302 P .3d 235 (Colo.2013); Fed.R.Evid. 501.
Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Maxwell is withholding production
of documents outside of the Relevant Periods described in paragraph15, supra, and is
withholding documents within the Relevant Period that are private and are not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The documents reflecting flight plans
in Maxwell’s possession do not identify passengers or manifests.
b. Request No. 33
All travel records between 1999 and the present reflecting your presence in: (a) Palm Beach
Florida or immediately surrounding areas; (b) 9 E. 71st Street, New York, NY 10021; (c) New
Mexico; (d) U.S. Virgin Islands; (e) any jet or aircraft owned or controlled by Jeffrey Epstein.
13
c. Maxwell’s Response to Request No. 33
Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome an/or proponed for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Maxwell. This
request is also duplicative and cumulative of Requests Nos. 8 and 14 above. Maxwell further
objects to this Request to the extent that it calls for the production of documents that are
irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Maxwell has been unable to locate
any documents responsive to this Request for the Relevant Periods as defined in paragraph 15,
supra. Maxwell is withholding production of documents outside of such Relevant Period.
d. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, as the Request Seeks Relevant Discovery
Popularly known in mainstream media as the “Lolita Express,”10 Epstein is alleged to
have used his private plane to traffic females across state lines for sexual purposes. The
flightlogs available at this time to Ms. Giuffre only show a fraction of the flights made by the
Lolita Express, but even those logs show Maxwell and Ms. Giuffre on these flights multiple
times. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4. This request concerning Maxwell’s travel will show
Maxwell’s involvement in the trafficking, including Ms. Giuffre, across state lines with and for
Epstein.
Jeffrey Epstein’s private island is only reachable by helicopter or boat. Maxwell was
known to fly the helicopter to the private island transporting guests. Therefore, her helicopter
flight records will show which girls and other individuals that Maxwell flew to Epstein’s private
island. The records will also demonstrate when and how many times Maxwell was operating the
helicopter.
Maxwell’s commercial flight, passport, hotel, and credit card records are highly relevant
because they will show, for example, that she flew to Paris, France with Ms. Giuffre while Ms.
10
See, e.g., “All aboard the ‘Lolita Express’: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2922773/Newly-released-
flight-logs-reveal-time-trips-Bill-Clinton-Harvard-law-professor-Alan-Dershowitz-took-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-
s-Lolita-Express-private-jet-anonymous-women.html.
14
Giuffre was a minor child. Additionally, these records will place Maxwell at other locations
around the United States and internationally at the same times Ms. Giuffre was in those
locations, which goes to the defamation claim in this case. The records will also link her to other
females who may have been trafficked for sex. Finally, Maxwell’s travel to Epstein’s residences
in Florida, New York, New Mexico, and USVI will support the allegations that Maxwell assisted
Jeffrey Epstein with his sexual trafficking operation. Accordingly, this is an improper objection.
Defendant Maxwell has admitted that she is withholding responsive documents from production,
and this Court should require her to produce them.
6. Request Nos. 10 and 11:
a. Request No. 10: All documents relating to payments made from
Jeffrey Epstein or any related entity to you from 1999 – present, including payments for work
performed, gifts, real estate purchases, living expenses, and payments to your charitable
endeavors including the TerraMar project.
b. Maxwell’s Response to Request No. 10:
Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and/or propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Maxwell.
Maxwell further objects to this Request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Maxwell has been unable to
locate any documents responsive to this Request during the Relevant Periods as defined in
paragraph15, supra. Maxwell is withholding production of documents outside of such
Relevant Periods.
c. Request No. 11: All documents relating to or describing any work
you performed with Jeffrey Epstein, or any affiliated entity from 1999 –present.
d. Maxwell’s Response to Request No. 11:
Maxwell objects to this Request in that the terms “work,” “with” and “affiliated entity”
are vague, undefined and susceptible of multiple meanings and definitions. M. Maxwell objects
to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and/or propounded for
the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Maxwell. Maxwell further objects to this Request
on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
15
Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Maxwell has been unable to
locate any documents responsive to this Request during the Relevant Periods as defined in
paragraph15, supra. Maxwell is withholding production of documents outside of such
Relevant Periods.
e. Maxwell’s Objections Fail, as the Request Seeks Relevant Discovery
Maxwell recruited Ms. Giuffre and groomed her to perform sexual acts for Jeffrey
Epstein. She also performed other services for Jeffrey Epstein, including recruiting and
scheduling girls to perform “massages” for Epstein. The household staff testified that they took
instructions from Maxwell. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Rodriguez at 24-25. Therefore,
her work for Epstein and related entities is relevant. Discovery concerning Maxwell’s
compensation, formal or informal, for the work she performed for convicted sex offender Jeffrey
Epstein is highly relevant for the entire Relevant Period, from 1999 to the present, because
Maxwell performed these services, and received compensation and gifts during this entire time
period. For example, a 2003 Vanity Fair article, written before the Jeffrey Epstein scandal
broke, describes Maxwell as someone who “seems to organize much of [Epstein’s] life --
recently she was making telephone inquiries to find a California-based yoga instructor for
him.”11 The police records also reveal that Maxwell recruited a female to work for Jeffrey
Epstein. The message pads also reveal Maxwell regularly working for Jeffrey Epstein, including
organizing his schedule for training underage girls. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, SAO2830.
The work she performed for Epstein, and the compensation she received, is relevant to the claim
in this case for the entire Relevant Period. Therefore, Maxwell must produce the documents she
is withholding.
7. Request No. 15: All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs or any other print
or electronic media taken at a time when you were in Jeffr
giuffre-maxwell
Unknown
21 pages
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 1 of 21
EXHIBIT 2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 2 of 21
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
________________________________/
PLAINTIFF, VIRGINIA GIUFFRE’S REVISED DISCLOSURE
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Virginia L. Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel,
and serves this revised disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and states as follows:
A. Witnesses:
1. Virginia L. Giuffre
c/o Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
Miami, Florida 33301
Tel: (954) 356-0011
Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com
Plaintiff - information regarding Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell’s conduct that is
the subject of this action
2. Ghislaine Maxwell
c/o Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com
Defendant in this action.
1
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 3 of 21
3. Juan Alessi
6791 Fairway Lakes Drive, Boynton Beach, FL 33472
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual
trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors.
4. Maria Alessi
6791 Fairway Lakes Drive, Boynton Beach, FL 33472
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual
trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors.
5. Doug Band
President of Teneo Holdings, 601 Lexington Avenue, 45th Floor,
New York, NY 10022, Tel: (212) 886-1600
Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and President
Clinton and may have knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interactions with minors.
6. Gwendolyn Beck
P.O. Box 705, Arlington, VA 22216
(703) 656-6007
May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual
trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors.
7. Sophie Biddle
388 W. Carmel Valley Road, Carmel Valley, CA 93924
Tel: (310) 394-7048
May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual
trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors.
8. Nadia Bjorlin
c/o Cris Armenta, Esq.
11900 Olympic Blvd., Suite 730, Los Angeles, CA 90064
Tel: (310) 826-2826
2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 4 of 21
Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Virginia
Guiffre and may have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual
trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors.
9. Kelly Bovino
16694 Via La Costa, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual
trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors.
10. Jean Luc Brunel
c/o Joe Titone, Esq.
621 South East 5th Street, Pompano Beach, FL 33060
Tel: (954) 729-6490
Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Virginia
Guiffre and has information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors.
11. Ron Burkle
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct.
12. Dana Burns
Address unknown at this time.
Telephone number unknown at this time
Worked for Ghislaine Maxwell and has information about Ghislaine Maxwell’s
recruiting of girls for Jeffrey Epstein.
13. Alyson Chambers
c/o Marshall Dore Louis, Esq.
Sinclair, Louis & Zavertnik, P.A.
40 N.W. 3rd Street, Suite 200, Miami, FL 33128
Tel: (305) 374-0544
Worked for Jeffrey Epstein as a masseuse during the time that Virginia Giuffre was
living and traveling with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, and has information about
Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct.
3
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 5 of 21
14. Maximilia Cordero
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual
trafficking conduct.
15. Valdson Cotrin
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual
trafficking conduct.
16. Chauntae Davies
1017 N. Spaulding Avenue, #8, West Hollywood, CA 90056
Telephone number unknown at this time
Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and may have
information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and
interaction with underage minors.
17. Teala Davies
1212 N. Clark Street, Apt. #7, West Hollywood, CA 90069
Telephone number unknown at this time
Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and may have
information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and
interaction with underage minors.
18. Anouska DeGeorgieou
536 N. Edinburgh Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual
trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors.
19. Alan Dershowitz
c/o Richard A. Simpson, Esq.
WILEY REIN, LLP
1776 K Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel: (202) 719-7000
4
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 6 of 21
Has knowledge of Defendant’s conduct that is the subject of this action.
20. Ryan Dionne
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct.
21. Eva Anderson Dubin
1090 N. Lake Way, Palm Beach, FL 33480
1040 5th Avenue, #15, New York, NY 10028
Telephone number unknown at this time
Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and has
information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and
interaction with underage minors.
22. Glen Dubin
1090 N. Lake Way, Palm Beach, FL 33480
1040 5th Avenue, #15, New York, NY 10028
Telephone number unknown at this time
Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and has
information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and
interaction with underage minors.
23. Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of York
Buckingham Palace Rd, London SW1A 1AA
Tel: 020 7766 7300
Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors, including Virginia Giuffre.
24. Jeffrey Epstein
c/o Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq.
315 SE 7th Street, Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 467-1223
and
c/o Marty Weinberg, Esq.
20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000, Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (617) 227-3700
5
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 7 of 21
Has knowledge of Defendant’s conduct that is the subject of this action and
knowledge of his sexual trafficking operation and other co-conspirators.
25. Tatiana Espinoza
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual
trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors.
26. Frederic Fekkai
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
Has knowledge of Defendant’s conduct that is the subject of this action.
27. Tony Figueroa
104 Houston School Ct, Red Oak, TX 75154
Telephone number unknown at this time
Has knowledge of Defendant’s conduct that is the subject of this action.
28. Luciano “Jojo” Fontanilla
18 Teneyck Avenue, Valley Stream, NY 11580-4016
917-975-4500
Jeffrey Epstein's staff member in his various homes and may have knowledge of
Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein’s inappropriate conduct with underage girls.
29. Lynn Fontanilla
18 Teneyck Avenue, Valley Stream, NY 11580-4016
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have knowledge of Defendant’s conduct that is the subject of this action.
30. Michael Friedman
53320 Avenida Madero, La Quinta, CA 92253
Telephone number unknown at this time
Former house staff and may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey
Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with minors.
6
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 8 of 21
31. Rosalie Friedman
53320 Avenida Madero, La Quinta, CA 92253
Telephone number unknown at this time
Former house staff and may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey
Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with minors.
32. Tiffany Kathryn Gramza
3927 Downey Ct, Simi Valley, CA 93063-2836
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have information about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual
trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors
33. Eric Gany
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct.
34. Amanda Grant
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct.
35. Lesley Groff
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct.
36. Claire Hazel
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors
7
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 9 of 21
37. Shelly Harrison
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors
38. Stephen Kaufman
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors
39. Sarah Kensington Vickers formerly Sarah Kellen
50 S. Pointe Dr, Apt. 2304, Miami Beach, FL 33139
Telephone number unknown at this time
Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interactions with minors.
40. Tatiana Kovylina
1 Central Park South, #1306, New York, NY 10019-1732
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors
41. Banu Kucukkoylu
4712 Admiralty Way, # 383, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Telephone number unknown at this time
Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors
42. Adam Perry Lang
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
Traveling chef for Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and may have knowledge
of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with
underage minors.
8
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 10 of 21
43. Shelly Ann Lewis
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors
44. Michael Liffman
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct.
45. Peter Listerman
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors
46. Cindy Lopez
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors
47. Melinda Lutz
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors
48. Cheri Lynch
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors.
9
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 11 of 21
49. Nadia Marcinko formerly Nadia Marcinkova
301 E. 66th Street, New York, NY 10065-6205
Telephone number unknown at this time
Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors
50. Todd Meister
101 Seminole Avenue, Palm Beach, FL 38480
Tel: (561) 650-0083
May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors
51. Brahakmana Mellawa
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
House staff who may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s
sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors.
52. Jayarukshi Mellawa
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
House staff who may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s
sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors.
53. George Mitchell
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors.
54. Bill Peadon
617 Piedmont Rd, West Palm Beach, FL 33405-1534
Telephone number unknown at this time
House staff that may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s
sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors.
10
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 12 of 21
55. Francis Peadon
617 Piedmont Rd, West Palm Beach, FL 33405-1534
Telephone number unknown at this time
House staff that may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s
sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors.
56. Tom Pritzker
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors.
57. Louella Rabuyo
Address unknown at this time
Telephone unknown at this time
House staff that may have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s
sexual trafficking conduct and interaction with underage minors.
58. Bill Richardson
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors.
59. Rinaldo Rizzo
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors.
60. Haley Robson
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors.
11
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 13 of 21
61. David Rogers
c/o Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq.
Tel: (561) 202-6360
Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors.
62. Adriana Ross formerly Adriana Mucinska
c/o Alan S. Ross, Esq.
Tel: (305) 858-9550
Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors.
63. Johanna Sjoberg
c/o Marshall Dore Louis, Esq.
40 N.W. 3rd Street, Suite 200, Miami, FL 33128
Tel: (305) 374-0544
Worked for Jeffrey Epstein during the time when Virginia Giuffre was living and
traveling with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Johanna Sjobjerg was also present at an
occasion with Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Virginia Giuffre when Ms. Giuffre was a
minor.
64. Kelly Spamm
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors.
65. Emmy Taylor
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors.
66. Evelyn Valenzuela
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
12
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 14 of 21
May have knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct.
67. Larry Visosky
c/o Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq.
Tel: (561) 202-6360
Telephone number unknown at this time
Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors.
68. Leslie Wexner
c/o John W. Zeiger, Esq., Zeiger, Tigges & Little LLP
41 South High Street, Suite 3500, Columbus, Ohio 43215
Tel: (614) 365-9900
Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors..
69. Igor Zinoview
Address unknown at this time
Telephone number unknown at this time
Has knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual trafficking
conduct and interaction with underage minors.
70. All other then-minor girls, recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, whose identities Ms.
Giuffre will attempt to determine, with whom Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell and
Jeffrey Epstein, have engaged in sexual activity.
71. All pilots, chauffeurs, chefs, and other employees of either Defendant Maxwell or
Jeffrey Epstein with knowledge of Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein’s inappropriate
conduct with underage girls.
72. All staff and employees at the Mar-a-Lago Club during 1999-2002.
73. All other witnesses learned through discovery process.
B. Exhibits:
1. Palm Beach Police Department report and documents contained within Jeffrey
Epstein's criminal files, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
13
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 15 of 21
2. March 10, 2011 Statement on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell by Media agent Ross
Gow, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
3. September 3, 2008 Victim Notification Letter, attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
4. May 1, 2009 Complaint in Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein, CIV-09-80656, in
the Southern District of Florida, attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
5. FBI 302 Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
6. Flight Logs, attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 6.
7. Message Pads from Law Enforcement from trash pull of Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm
Beach home, attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
8. Jeffrey Epstein’s Phone Book, also referred to as his “Black Book,” attached hereto
as Exhibit 8.
9. Deposition of Sarah Kellen, attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 9.
10. Deposition Transcripts of Juan Alessi, attached hereto as Exhibit 10.
11. Deposition Transcripts of Alfredo Rodriguez, attached hereto as Exhibit 11.
12. January 2, 2015 Corrected Joinder Motion [DE 280] filed in the CVRA action
pending in the Southern District of Florida, attached hereto as Exhibit 12. [All
paragraphs between “The Government then concealed from Jane Doe No. 3
the existence of the NPA (pg. 3) and “The Government was well aware of Jane
Doe No. 3 when it was negotiating the NPA” (pg. 6) were stricken by Judge
Marra.]
13. January 21, 2015 Declaration of Jane Doe No. 3 filed in the CVRA action pending
in the Southern District of Florida, attached hereto as Exhibit 13. [Paragraphs 4, 5,
7, 11, 13, 15, 19-53, and 59 were stricken by Judge Marra]
14. February 6, 2015 Declaration of Jane Doe No. 3 filed in the CVRA action pending
in the Southern District of Florida, attached hereto as Exhibit 14. [Paragraphs 7-
12, 16, 39 and 49 were stricken by Judge Marra.]
15. November 25, 2015 Affidavit of Virginia Giuffre, filed in the Bradley Edwards and
Paul Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz matter, pending in the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit, Broward County, Florida, attached hereto as Exhibit 15.
16. Virginia Roberts’ passport, attached hereto as Exhibit 16.
17. Judge Thomas Lynch’s January 12, 2016 Confidentiality Order regarding Virginia
Giuffre’s deposition, attached hereto as Exhibit 17.
18. Documents produced and bates labelled Non-Party VR 000001 – Non-Party VR
000644, in the Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz matter,
14
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 16 of 21
pending in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, attached
hereto as Exhibit 18.
19. Victims Refuse Silence Articles of Incorporation and Amendment, attached hereto
as Composite Exhibit 19.
20. Victims Refuse Silence By-laws, attached hereto as Exhibit 20.
21. Victims Refuse Silence 2016 Annual Report, attached hereto as Exhibit 21.
22. January 3, 2015 Daily Mail article: “Harvard Law Professor Named Alongside
Prince Andrew in ‘Sex Slave’ Case Accuses Alleged Victim of ‘Making Up
Stories,’” attached hereto as Exhibit 22.
23. January 3, 2015 Press Statement issued by Ross Gow to Express set forth in
“Ghislaine Maxwell: I was not a madam for paedophile,” attached as Exhibit 23.
24. January 4, 2015 Statement by Ghislaine Maxwell to New York Daily News
Reporter “Alleged Madam Accused of Supplying Prince Andrew With Underage
Teen for Sex Spotted in NYC – As He’s Seen Cutting Swiss Vacation Short to Face
Queen,” attached hereto as Exhibit 24.
25. February 1, 2015 Mirror article: “Prince Andrew’s Pal Ghislaine Maxwell May Sue
Over Madam Allegations,” attached hereto as Exhibit 25.
26. September 23, 2007 Red Ice Creations Article “Prince Andrew’s Friend, Ghislaine
Maxwell, Some Underage Girls, and A Very Disturbing Story,” attached hereto as
Exhibit 26.
27. Photographs, attached hereto as Exhibit 27.
28. April 13, 2010 Deposition Transcript of Nadia Marcinkova, attached hereto as
Exhibit 28.
C. Computation of damages:
1. Physical, psychological and psychiatric injuries and resulting medical expenses – in
an amount of approximately $ 102,200 present value.
a. Computation Analysis:
i. Giuffre has had to receive treatment for the psychological harm as a
result of Maxwell’s conduct towards Giuffre.
ii. The average annual expenditures for mental health services for adults
18-64 in the United States is $1,751.
15
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 17 of 21
iii. Giuffre needs continuing care as a result of the harm she has suffered.
Ms. Giuffre was born August 9, 1983 and was 31.4 years old at the
beginning of 2015 when the alleged harm occurred. The average
remaining life expectancy for a 31 year old female is 51.1 years.
iv. Based on a remaining life expectancy of 51.1 years, annual healthcare
cost growth of 3.3% and a discount rate of 2.7%, the present value of
expected treatment costs is $102,200 as of 1/1/2015.
b. Supporting Evidence:
i. Ms. Giuffre is in the process of collecting records from her physicians
ii. Ms. Giuffre’s testimony
iii. Ms. Giuffre is in the process of retaining an expert to calculate
damages, and will provide further information through expert
disclosure.
2. Past, present and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation,
embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of standing in the community, loss of
dignity and invasion of privacy in her public and private life not less than
$30,000,000.00.
a. Computation Analysis
i. Under New York law, defamation per se as alleged in this case
presumes damages and special damages do not need to be plead and
proven. See Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enterprises Inc., 209 F.3d 163,
179 (2nd Cir. 2000) (Second Circuit holding that ‘[i]f a statement is
defamatory per se, injury is assumed. In such a case ‘even where the
plaintiff can show no actual damages at all, a plaintiff who has
otherwise shown defamation may recover at least nominal damages’
and the Second Circuit also confirmed an award of punitive
damages). Ms. Giuffre has been severely damaged by the defamation
of the defendant, by calling her claims of sexual abuse “obvious lies”.
The defamation caused Ms. Giuffre to re-live the sexual abuse she
previously endured. Ms. Giuffre has suffered and continues to suffer
from the pain, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of
self-esteem, loss of standing in the community, loss of dignity and
invasion of privacy in her public and private life. The computation of
this amount is in the province of the jury but Ms. Giuffre contends,
including but not limited to, awards in other similar matters, that the
16
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 18 of 21
amount is not less than $30,000,000.00. Ms. Giuffre is in the process
of retaining an expert, and will provide further information through
expert disclosure.
b. Supporting Evidence
i. Ms. Giuffre’s testimony
ii. Witness testimony
iii. Awards in similar matters
iv. Ms. Giuffre is in the process of retaining an expert, and will provide
further information through expert disclosure.
3. Estimated lost income of $180,000 annually. Present value of $3,461,000 to
$5,407,000.
a. Computation Analysis
i. Ms. Giuffre’s estimated compensation capacity is $180,000 annually.
Ms. Giuffre was born August 9, 1983 and was 31.4 years old at the
beginning of 2015 when the alleged injury occurred. Her expected
remaining work life based on mortality and probability of continued
work was 20.2 years. Based on these factors, a 2% annual growth rate
and a 2.4% discount rate, the present value of lost compensation is
$3,461,000 as of 1/1/2015.
ii. Alternatively, if Ms. Giuffre is assumed to work until a normal
retirement age of 65, or 33.6 years from her age at the beginning of
2015, and based on an annual growth rate of 2.0% and a discount rate
of 2.7%, the present value of lost compensation is $5,407,000 as of
1/1/2015.
b. Supporting Evidence
i. Materials regarding compensation and work life expectancy
1) 2010 Life Table for Females, National Vital Statistics Report,
November 6, 2014, U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, National
Center for Health Statistics.
17
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 19 of 21
2) “Calculation of Work life Expectancy Using the Life,
Participation, Employment Method,” Vocational Econometrics,
Inc.
3) Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical
Workers, United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
4) Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15, 1/5/2015.
ii. Ms. Giuffre’s testimony
iii. Ms. Giuffre is in the process of retaining a damages expert and will provide
further information through expert disclosures.
4. Punitive Damages - to be based upon all relevant factors, including the egregious
nature of Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell’s conduct and the need for a large award to
punish and deter conduct in view of the vast wealth of Defendant Maxwell, in an
amount not less than $50,000,000.00.
a. This calculation is in the province of the jury.
18
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 20 of 21
Dated March 11, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011
David Boies
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Ellen Brockman
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
575 Lexington Ave
New York, New York 10022
(212) 446-2300
19
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 69-2 Filed 03/23/16 Page 21 of 21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
Disclosure Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 has been provided by United States mail and electronic
mail to all counsel of record identified below, on this 11th day of March, 2016.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com
By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley______
Sigrid McCawley
20
giuffre-maxwell
Unknown
42 pages
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 1 of 42
COMPOSITE
EXHIBIT 1
(FILE UNDER SEAL)
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 2 of 42
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
________________________________/
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DATA FROM DEFENDANT’S UNDISCLOSED
EMAIL ACCOUNT AND FOR AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION
Plaintiff, Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, files this Motion to
Compel Data from Defendant’s Undisclosed Email Account and for An Adverse Inference
Instruction regarding the data from that account, and states as follows. Defendant has not disclosed,
nor produced data from, the email account she used while abusing Ms. Giuffre from 2000-2002
in violation of this Court’s Order [DE 352]. Ms. Giuffre hereby moves to compel Defendant to
produce this data, and requests that this Court enter an adverse inference jury instruction for this
willful violation of this Court’s orders.
I. BACKGROUND
The earliest-dated email Defendant has produced in this litigation is from July 18, 2009.
(GM_00069). Ms. Giuffre is aware of two email addresses that appear to be the email addresses
Defendant used while Ms. Giuffre was with Defendant and Epstein, namely, from 2000 - 2002.
Defendant has denied that she used those accounts to communicate, but she has not disclosed the
account she did use to communicate during that time, nor produce documents from it.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 3 of 42
Importantly, Defendant has never denied using an email account for communication from
1999-2009, and the facts and circumstances show that it is exceedingly unlikely that Defendant
did not use an email account to communicate those years.1
For example, according to United States Department of Commerce, “eighty-eight percent
of adult Internet users sent or received e-mail” in 2000. See Eric C. Newburger, “Home
Computers and Internet Use in the United States: August 2000,” U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, September
2001. Additionally, the Pew Research Center published findings that certain demographics have
higher internet usage, including many demographics to which Defendant belongs. For example,
higher rates of internet usage are found among younger adults (Defendant was 38 in 1999); those
with college educations (Defendant has a master’s degree); those in households earning more
than $75,000 (Defendant was in a household headed by a billionaire during that time, and that
household had its own private email server and account); whites or English-speaking Asian-
Americans (Defendant is white); and those who live in urban areas (Defendant lived in Palm
Beach and Manhattan). See Andres Perrin and Maeve Duggan, ‘Americans’ Internet Access:
2000-2015,” PEW RESEARCH CENTER, June 26, 2015.
Additionally, her boyfriend, Jeffrey Epstein, with whom she shared a household from
1999-2002 (and other years), implemented an entire, private email system to communicate with
his household and employees, including Defendant. Accordingly, given Defendant’s
extraordinary economic resources, her high-level social connections, and her elaborate
residential email/internet configuration she had during that time, it is extraordinarily unlikely that
she would not employ an almost ubiquitous communication tool, nor has she denied it.
1
On Friday, September 23, 2016, counsel for Ms. Giuffre sent a letter to Defendant inquiring about the undisclosed
account. As of the date of this motion, Defendant has made no response.
2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 4 of 42
A. The Account
Ms. Giuffre has knowledge of the account because it was listed as
part of Defendant’s contact information (including phone number) on documents gathered by the
police from Epstein’s home, and turned over to the Palm Beach County State Attorney as part of
the investigation and prosecution of Epstein.
See (DE 280-2), Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office, Public Records Request No.: 16-
268, Disc 7 at p. 2305 (GIUFFRE007843). Despite the fact that this account was listed as her
contact information in the home she shared with Epstein, and despite the fact that the username
bears her initials, Defendant claims she does not recognize the account, and has no access to it.
B. The Account
The mindspring account is also listed as part of Defendant’s contact information gathered
by the police. In her filing with this Court, Defendant represented that this was merely a “spam”
account “to use when registering for retail sales notifications and the like,” and that it contains no
relevant documents. (DE 345 at pg. 8). However, it appears that Jeffrey Epstein created the
mindspring.org accounts to communicate with his household and with his employees, and did, in
fact, communicate with them this way.
As previously recounted, Jeffrey Epstein’s house manager, Juan Alessi testified that
MindSpring account was in daily use by the Epstein household to send and receive messages, a
household to which Defendant belonged:
Q. So when there would be a message from one of them while they were out of town,
they would call you, call you on the telephone?
A. I haven't spoken to Ghislaine in 12 years.
3
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 5 of 42
Q. Sorry. I'm talking about when you worked there and you would receive a message that
they were coming into town, would that be by way of telephone?
A. Telephone, and also, there was a system at the house, that it was MindSpring,
MindSpring I think it's called, that it was like a message system that would come from
the office.
Q. What is MindSpring?
A. It was a server. I think it was -- the office would have, like, a message system
between him, the houses, the employees, his friends. They would write a message on the
computer. There was no email at that time.
Q. Okay. So what computer would you use?
A. My computer in my office.
Q. And so was part of your daily routine to go to your computer and check to see if you
had MindSpring messages?
A. No. That was at the end of my stay. That was the very end of my stay. I didn't get
involved with that too much. But it was a message system that Jeffrey received every
two, three hours, with all the messages that would have to go to the office in New York,
and they will print it and send it faxed to the house, and I would hand it to him.
Q. Did it look like the message pads that we've been looking at?
A. No, no, nothing like that.
Q. Was it typed-out messages?
A. Yes, typed-out messages.
Q. Just explain one example of how it would work. Let's say that Ghislaine wanted to
send him a message on MindSpring. How would that work?
A. An example?
Q. Sure.
A. It got so ridiculous at the end of my stay, okay? That Mr. Epstein, instead of talking
to me that he wants a cup of coffee, he will call the office; the office would type it; they
would send it to me, Jeffrey wants a cup of coffee, or Jeffrey wants an orange juice out
by the pool.
Q. He would call the office in New York. They would then type it in MindSpring?
4
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 6 of 42
A. Send it to me.
Q. How would you know to check for it? How would you know to look for this
MindSpring?
A. Because I was in the office. I was there. I was there. And we have a signal when it
come on and says, Hey, you've got mail.
Q. Okay.
A. Every day. Every day it was new things put in. That's why I left, too.
Q. Do you know who set up the mind spring system?
A. It was a computer guy. It was a computer guy who worked only for
Jeffrey. Mark. Mark Lumber.
Q. Was he local to Palm Beach?
A. No. He was in New York. Everything was set up from New York. And Mark
Lumber, I remember he came to Palm Beach to set up the system at the house.
Alessi Dep. Tr. at 223:5-225:17. (June 1, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Sealed Exhibit 1).
Accordingly, mindspring was a domain name set up for Jeffrey Epstein and his household to
communicate with one another, and was, in fact, used in this manner.
The sworn testimony of Janusz Banasiak, another of Epstein’s house managers, from the case
L.M. v. Jeffery Epstein and Sarah Kellen,2 gives a fuller representation of how Defendant, and
others in Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring, used their accounts on Epstein’s mindspring server:
Q. Okay. Were you aware that Mr. Epstein used a Citrix program to link various computers?
Did you know that?
A. Yeah. I use Citrix too in my computer for exchanging e-mails and get through Internet.
***
2
Case No.: 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB, In the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida.
5
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 7 of 42
Q. That's not something that you were, you were privy to? You weren't, you weren't in the
loop of the sharing of information in the house in terms of the computers being connected
through any server?
A. I don't really know what, how, how to answer your question because Citrix is for the
whole organization to exchange e-mail between employees.
Q. All right. You used the term?
A. So, even my computer is connected to Citrix. I can receive mail and I can e-mail
information to employee within organization. But I don't know if you can see to each
computer what is going on on another computer.
***
Q. You have used the term organization; you can share within the organization. What do you
-- just so I can understand what you're calling the organization, what do you mean by that
word?
A. People employed by Jeffrey Epstein. There are a few groups of people, his office in New
York and I guess --
***
Q. Okay. The other people mentioned as co-conspirators are Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, and
Nadia Marcinkova. So we'll get to them in a minute but first just so we stay on the track of
who was in the organization, is Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross and Nadia Marcinkova all people
that you would also consider within the organization?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So, we just added three more names to it. Who else would you consider,
Ghislaine Maxwell?
A. Yes.
Banasiak Deposition at 56:13-17; 57:2-14; 58:1-7; 60:21-61:7 (February 16, 2010) (Emphasis
added) (McCawley Decl. at Sealed Composite Exhibit 2).
As Defendant was a member of Epstein’s household, and claims to have been his
employee (See McCawley Decl. at Sealed Exhibit 3, Maxwell’s April 22, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 10:7-
11:3), it is unlikely that her mindspring account was merely a “spam account” from 1999-2002.
It is much more likely that this account has - or had - Defendant’s communications with co-
6
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 8 of 42
conspirators Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and Epstein. However, it is Defendant’s
representation that this account does not presently have responsive documents and was merely
used for “spam.”
C. Defendant’s Non-Disclosed Email Account
If the Court accepts Defendant’s claim that she used neither the earthlink.net account nor
the mindspring.org “spam” account to communicate, logic dictates that Defendant must have had
another email account - one that she actually used - from 2000 - 2002. Despite the Court’s orders
that Defendant produce responsive documents from all her email accounts from 1999 to the
present, Defendant has neither disclosed nor produced from the email account that she actually
used to communicate from 2000-2002. This refusal violates this Court’s orders. Ms. Giuffre
issued requests to Defendant on October 27, 2015. Nearly a year later, after this Court has
specifically ordered Defendant to produce her responsive email from all her accounts, Defendant
has produced none from this account. Not only has Defendant failed to produce emails from the
account she actually used from 1999-2002, and she has not even disclosed what account it is.
II. ARGUMENT
A. An Adverse Inference Instruction is Appropriate
An adverse inference instruction is appropriate regarding documents from the email
account Defendant actually used from 1999-2002. In light of this clear and persistent pattern of
recalcitrance, the Court should instruct the jury that it can draw an adverse inference that the
Defendant has concealed relevant evidence. Even if Defendant were, at this late date, to run Ms.
Giuffre’s proposed search terms over the data from the email account she used from 1999 - 2002
(which she refuses to disclose), such a production would be both untimely and prejudicial. Fact
discovery has closed. Numerous depositions have already been taken by Ms. Giuffre without the
benefit of these documents. The window for authenticating the documents through depositions
7
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 9 of 42
has shut. Expert reports have been exchanged, so Ms. Giuffre’s experts did not have the benefit
of reviewing these documents. Late production of this information robs Ms. Giuffre of any
practical ability to use the discovery, and, importantly, it was incumbent on Defendant to identify
this account.
The Second Circuit has stated, “[w]here documents, witnesses, or information of any
kind relevant issues in litigation is or was within the exclusive or primary control of a party and
is not provided, an adverse inference can be drawn against the withholding party. Such adverse
inferences are appropriate as a consequence for failure to make discovery.” Bouzo v. Citibank,
N.A., 1993 WL 525114, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (internal citations omitted). The Defendant’s
continued systemic foot-dragging and obstructionism – even following the Court’s June 20
Sealed Order and August 10, 2016 Order [DE 352] – makes an adverse inference instruction with
regard to Defendant’s documents appropriate. An adverse inference instruction is appropriate
when a party refuses to turn over documents in defiance of a Court Order. See Lyondell-Citgo
Refining, LP v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., 2005 WL 1026461, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2005)
(denying application to set aside Magistrate Judge Peck’s order entering an adverse inference
instruction against defendant for failure to produce documents that the Judge Peck had ordered
Defendant to produce). Accordingly, because a “party’s failure to produce evidence within its
control creates a presumption that evidence would be unfavorable to that party” an adverse
inference should be applied with respect to Defendant’s failure to produce data from the email
account she used from 1999 -2002 “in order to ensure fair hearing for [the] other party seeking
evidence.” Doe v. U.S. Civil Service Commission, 483 F. Supp. 539, 580 (S.D. N.Y., 1980)
(citing International Union v. NLRB, 148 U.S. App. D.C. 305, 312-317, 459 F.2d 1329, 1336-41
(D.C.Cir.1972)).
8
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 10 of 42
“An adverse inference serves the remedial purpose of restoring the prejudiced party to the
same position he would have been in absent the wrongful destruction of [or willful refusal to
produce] evidence by the opposing party.” Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 296 F.R.D. 168, 222
(S.D.N.Y. 2013) (granting an adverse inference when defendants refused to produce documents
pursuant to the District Court’s order). Where “an adverse inference ... is sought on the basis that
the evidence was not produced in time for use at trial, the party seeking the instruction must
show (1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to timely produce it;
(2) that the party that failed to timely produce the evidence had ‘a culpable state of mind’; and
(3) that the missing evidence is ‘relevant’ to the party's claim or defense such that a reasonable
trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or defense.” Id. (citing Residential
Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 108 (2d Cir. 2002)).
Furthermore, as discussed in detail in Ms. Giuffre’s Motion for an Adverse Inference
Instruction (DE 315) and Supplement Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction (DE 338), an
adverse inference is appropriate regarding the documents that Defendant is withholding under
the Second Circuit’s test set forth in Residential Funding. Defendant has admitted to deleting
emails as this Court noted in its Order. An adverse inference is equally appropriate if the non-
compliance was due to Defendant’s destruction of evidence. See Brown v. Coleman, 2009 WL
2877602, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009) (“Where a party violates a court order—either by
destroying evidence when directed to preserve it or by failing to produce information because
relevant data has been destroyed—Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that the court may impose a range of sanctions, including dismissal or judgment by default,
preclusion of evidence, imposition of an adverse inference, or assessment of attorneys' fees and
costs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b); see Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306
9
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 11 of 42
F.3d 99, 106–07 (2d Cir.2002)”). See also Essenter v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 2011 WL
124505, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2011); and Rule 37(e), Fed. R. Civ. P. (“If electronically stored
information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost
because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it . . . the court: (2) only upon finding
that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the
litigation may: (A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party; (b) instruct
the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or (C) dismiss
the action or enter a default judgment.”). Failure to disclose the email account Defendant actually
used from 1992-2002 warrants an adverse inference instruction.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that this Court compel
Defendant to disclose what email account she actually used from 2009-1999, and that the court
give the jury an adverse inference jury instruction concerning the documents from the
undisclosed email account.
October 14, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice)
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011
David Boies
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
10
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 12 of 42
Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 524-2820
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 585-52023
3
This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
representation.
11
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 13 of 42
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 14, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing
document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing
System generated by CM/ECF.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com
jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
/s/ Meredith Schultz
Meredith Schultz
12
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 14 of 42
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------X
.............................................
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff,
v.
15-cv-07433-RWS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------X
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DATA FROM DEFENDANT’S (NON-EXISTENT) UNDISCLOSED EMAIL
ACCOUNT AND FOR AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION
Laura A. Menninger
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
303.831.7364
i
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 15 of 42
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 1
I. PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO CONFER UNDER RULE 37(A)(1) OR THIS COURT’S
ORDER.................................................................................................................................... 1
II. MS. MAXWELL HAS DISCLOSED AND SEARCHED ALL EMAIL ACCOUNTS ........ 3
III. SANCTIONS AGAINST MS. MAXWELL NOT WARRANTED, RATHER COSTS
OUGHT TO BE AWARDED TO HER .............................................................................. 7
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 15
i
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 16 of 42
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”) files this Response to Plaintiff’s Motion
To Compel Data From Defendant’s (Non-Existent) Undisclosed Email Account and For an
Adverse Inference Instruction and states as follow:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff continues in her course of re-litigating issues, multiplying these proceedings and
misstating the record. In what amounts to the fourth Motion on forensic examination of Ms.
Maxwell’s computers and email accounts, Plaintiff now trumps up a claim that some unidentified
and “undisclosed” email account should have been searched and was not. To the contrary, Ms.
Maxwell has spent thousands of dollars to forensically image all of her devices, searching every
account to which she has access, conducting extremely broad and over-reaching searches for the
search terms Plaintiff requested and in complying with this Court’s Orders. The result of these
exercises proved, as Ms. Maxwell has always maintained, that all non-privileged relevant and
responsive documents in her possession, custody and control had already been searched for and
produced prior to the excessive and redundant briefing on these issues, resulting in no additional
production. Plaintiff’s Motion must be denied because no “undisclosed” email account exists
and Ms. Maxwell has fully complied with this Court’s Orders.
ARGUMENT
I. PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO CONFER UNDER RULE 37(A)(1) OR THIS
COURT’S ORDER
Despite the clear requirements of Rule 37(a)(1) requiring a certificate of conferral prior to
filing any motion to compel, and this Court’s standing order regarding conferral on all discovery
issues prior to Motions practice, the sum total of Plaintiff’s stated conferral attempt is a footnote
stating that a letter was sent on September 23, 2016 “inquiring about the undisclosed account” –
a letter not included in the exhibits to the Motion. Ms. Maxwell has been clear that she has
1
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 17 of 42
searched all accounts that she can access. Had Plaintiff bothered to follow up on this alleged
communication, Ms. Maxwell would have reaffirmed that there is no “undisclosed” email
account. Instead, Plaintiff filed this frivolous and vexatious motion to waste both the Court and
Ms. Maxwell’s time and needlessly multiply these proceedings.
Courts in this district routinely deny motions based on failure to confer prior to the
motion when such conferral is required by the Rules or Court Order. Prescient Partners, L.P. v.
Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc., No. 96 Civ. 7590 (DAB) JCF, 1998 WL 67672, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
(“Under ordinary circumstances,..., the failure to meet and confer mandates denial of a motion to
compel.”); Excess Ins. Co. v. Rochdale Ins. Co., No. 05 CIV. 10174, 2007 WL 2900217, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2007) (Sweet, J.) (denying motion and cross motion based on failure to confer,
noting “[m]ere correspondence, absent exigent circumstances not present here, does not satisfy
the requirement”); Myers v. Andzel, No. 06 CIV. 14420 (RWS), 2007 WL 3256865, at *1
(Sweet, J.) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007) (denying motion based on failure to confer).
The Court has been abundantly clear on the necessity for conferral prior to motions
practice. In the March 17, 2016 hearing, the Court ordered that prior to motions practice, the
parties were to set an agenda on the disputed issue in writing and have a meeting of substance
prior to filing a motion. “So I would say exchange writing as to what it's going to be and have a
meeting. It doesn't have to be in person, but it certainly has to be a significant meeting; it can't
be just one ten-minute telephone call. So that's how I feel about the meet and confer.” Tr. p. 3.
As shown in the Plaintiff’s motion, no such call has occurred.
Based on Plaintiff’s failure to confer as required by both the Federal Rules and this
Court’s standing order, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Motion be denied and attorneys’ fees and
costs of responding be awarded to Ms. Maxwell.
2
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 18 of 42
II. MS. MAXWELL HAS DISCLOSED AND SEARCHED ALL EMAIL ACCOUNTS
a. All Devices Have Been Forensically Searched for Responsive Emails
As requested by Plaintiff and Ordered by the Court, Ms. Maxwell’s computer and all of
her electronic devices have been forensically imaged, searched for the search terms requested by
Plaintiff, and all responsive documents produced. This expensive, costly and time consuming
exercise in futility simply confirmed that all responsive documents, including all responsive
emails, were produced in March and April 2016.
Most significantly, the devices were searched for all emails—whether saved or deleted –
and irrespective of which account they came from; not a single responsive email was located
from any Mindspring account and no emails were located from Earthlink or any other secret,
hidden, “undisclosed” email account, as Plaintiff speculates must exist.
b. The MindSpring account
The first two accounts discussed in the Motion have already been fully discussed in prior
briefings and at length in conferral conferences.1 See DE 320. In addition to the search of Ms.
Maxwell’s computer and devices, the first account, was forensically
searched on its server using the search terms proposed by Defendants and as required by the
Court. The search uncovered no responsive documents from any time period. See DE 320. This
included both emails in the account, deleted emails, and any other information relating to the
account retained on the MindSpring server. There can simply be no claim for an adverse
inference where Plaintiff has already received exactly what she requested – a forensic search of
the account for her own defined terms. It resulted in nothing.
1
Plaintiff conveniently omits the fact that the EarthLink and MindSpring accounts were in an address book
purportedly recovered from Mr. Epstein’s home by the Palm Beach Police in 2005. Thus, there is no indication or
inference that either of these accounts were created or used in the 2000 to 2002 time frame as Plaintiff claims.
3
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 19 of 42
c. The EarthLink account
The second account, is, as Ms. Maxwell has repeatedly explained
to Plaintiff’s counsel, an account that she does not recognize, that she does not recall having ever
logged onto, and for which she has no password. See DE 320. Ms. Maxwell tried every avenue
available online through EarthLink to reset the password or otherwise access the account. In
fact, when one attempts to recover a password for that account, the system states “The email
address you entered is not an EarthLink email address or ID.” According to Plaintiff, such a
message means the account has been permanently deleted by the host company. Plaintiff’s
counsel, Meredith Shultz, wrote on May 17, 2016, regarding an account of Plaintiff’s (that she
claims she cannot access but for which relevant and responsive emails were located on her
computer):
“Regarding her live.com address, it appears that the account has been
permanently deleted by the host Company. One method of telling if an account
still exists for live.com (and for most web mail systems) is to perform an
account password recovery. When you enter the e-mail address and enter the
captca code and hit Next, the website states that it does not recognize the email
address. This means that the account has been permanently deleted from
live.com’s system.”
Menninger Decl., Ex. A.
Plaintiff does not, and cannot, explain why she thinks that her own live.com email
address has been permanently deleted by the host company, yet based on the exact same set of
data, she thinks that an email account that Ms. Maxwell does not recall ever using (and from
which no documents exist on her devices) from Earthlink still remains on its system. If there is
some way to access the account, Plaintiff hasn’t said what it is. Ms. Maxwell simply has no way
to access this account and has no information, save Plaintiff’s rank speculation.2
2
Plaintiff has an account from which actual documents have been produced – proving she did use the
account (unlike Ms. Maxwell’s EarthLink account) and it contains relevant information. Yet Plaintiff claims she
4
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 20 of 42
Because Plaintiff claimed she cannot access her Microsoft account, Ms. Maxwell
subpoenaed Microsoft for the documents. Plaintiff moved to quash the subpoena to obtain the
information contained in the account and has refused to sign the release provided to her that
would allow the production of that information under the terms of a subpoena issued to
Microsoft. Menninger Decl,. Ex. B. Tellingly, Plaintiff did not issue a subpoena to EarthLink
regarding this account to see if it existed, has content or could be accessed. Instead, she seeks
the drastic and improper sanction of an adverse inference knowing that it is far more beneficial to
her than actually receiving information from EarthLink which would reveal nothing exists.
d. There is no “Undisclosed” Account
Plaintiff next argues that she is entitled to an adverse inference based on the failure to
search a phantom e-mail account that she presumes (without support and based on pure
speculation) must have existed, which she has never asked about in discovery, claiming that such
an account was improperly “undisclosed” and not searched. Plaintiff bases her absurd argument
on statistics suggesting that someone like Ms. Maxwell “likely” had an email account in the 2000
to 2002 timeframe and a specious claim that Ms. Maxwell has never denied having an email
account from 2000 to 2002. Motion at 2. Notably absent from the Motion is a single
interrogatory, request for admission, or deposition question in which Ms. Maxwell was asked to
provide all email addresses she has used or asked if she ever had an email account in 2000 to
2002. No such question was ever posed to Ms. Maxwell on this issue.3 How could she possibly
deny the existence of an account when she was never asked the question?
cannot access her Microsoft account because she does not remember the password and does not have sufficient
personal information to provide to gain access to the account. DE 207; DE 441. This is not dissimilar to Ms.
Maxwell who does not even remember the account let alone the password.
3
By contrast, Ms. Maxwell requested that Plaintiff identify all email and social media accounts which she
had used since 1998. Plaintiff provided false information, and purposefully omitted accounts that have since been
discovered, one of which Plaintiff still has failed to forensically search and disclose its responsive documents.
5
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 21 of 42
Plaintiff asks this Court to infer the existence of an undisclosed “email” account for Ms.
Maxwell in the 2000-2002 timeframe based on witness accounts that Jeffrey Epstein had a
“messaging system” on a private server. Of course, there is a big difference between having a
private email account (gmail, aol, yahoo, etc.) and communicating through a private messaging
system on an employer’s sever, as described by Mr. Alessi (“It was a server. I think it was --the
office would have, like, a message system between him, the houses, the employees, his friends.
They would write a message on the computer. There was no email at that time.”).4 To the
extent there was a private messaging system used by Mr. Epstein’s household employees
maintained on a private server by Mr. Epstein, information from that system is not available to
Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell has not been employed by Mr. Epstein for over 10 years and has not
had any access to Mr. Epstein’s server through Citrix or otherwise since at least the end of her
employment with him.
“Whether a party subject to a document request can be compelled to comply depends on
two preliminary questions: (1) assuming the requested documents exist, does the party have
possession, custody or control over them, and (2) if the party has such possession, custody or
control, can the party be compelled to conduct a reasonable search for and, if found, to produce
the documents.” Gross v. Lunduski, 304 F.R.D. 136, 142 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). Ms. Maxwell is not
in the possession, custody or control of the server or any information it may contain. “Where
4
It appears this is what was also being described by Mr. Banasiak in the deposition from another case, a
full copy of which has never been produced in this litigation. Indeed, Mr. Banasiak has not been identified as a
person with relevant or discoverable information in any of the last three of Plaintiff’s Rule 26 Disclosures. In the
cited testimony, Mr. Banasiak appears to have discussed accessing a private messaging system maintained on Mr.
Epstein’s private server using Citrix, a program that allows such access to authorized users. Because Plaintiff has
failed to disclose the transcript being quoted, Ms. Maxwell cannot fully decipher the obviously edited testimony
quoted in the Motion, does not know what timeframe Mr. Banasiak was referring to regarding the computers or
using Citrix, and cannot respond to the claims made regarding the nature of any inference that could be drawn from
Mr. Banasiak’s selected testimony. The entire argument and reference to the transcript must be ignored and stricken
based on Plaintiff’s failure to produce in discovery the transcript she relies on.
6
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 22 of 42
control is contested, the party seeking production of documents bears the burden of establishing
the opposing party's control over those documents.” Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc.,
No. 12 CIV. 6608 (PKC) (JCF), 2014 WL 61472, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2014). Plaintiff has
made no showing that Ms. Maxwell has any control over the hypothetical documents she
suspects may be on Mr. Epstein’s private server. As has been made clear by Mr. Epstein’s
refusal to produce any documents in this matter or provide any testimony, instead invoking his
Fifth Amendment privilege, there is no manner in which Ms. Maxwell could require Mr. Epstein
to provide any information on Mr. Epstein’s private server. Notably, no such “messages” were
located on any of Ms. Maxwell’s devices or within her email accounts.
Simply put, there are no emails from any accounts, systems or electronic storage devices
over which Ms. Maxwell has possession, custody or control that have not been searched and
from which responsive non-privileged documents produced.
III. SANCTIONS AGAINST MS. MAXWELL NOT WARRANTED, RATHER COSTS
OUGHT TO BE AWARDED TO HER
Plaintiff completely fails to identify which, if any, of the Rules of Civil Procedure she
relies on to claim any right to request sanctions, let alone to receive an adverse inference
instruction. The argument appears premised on a claim that Ms. Maxwell has not complied with
the Court’s Order – a completely inaccurate claim:
On June 20, 2016, this Court ordered:
Defendant is ordered to collect all ESI by imaging her computers and collecting all email
and text messages on any devices in Defendant's possession or to which she has access
that Defendant used between the period of 2002 to present. Defendant is further directed
to run mutually- agreed upon search terms related to Plaintiff's requests for production
over the aforementioned ESI and produce responsive documents within 21 days of
distribution of this opinion.
This was done. Plaintiff then expanded her request, imposed additional search terms, and
added conditions concerning the manner in which she wanted devices searched. On August 9,
7
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 23 of 42
2016, the Court entered an Order adopting Plaintiff’s expanded request and methodology. All
accessible email accounts and devices, including deleted files and emails, were searched – again
– at significant expense. Again, no additional non-privileged responsive documents were
located. There is no non-compliance and no basis for any sanctions, let alone the draconian
sanction of an adverse inference.
a. Plaintiff Fails to Identify or Prove the Factors Required for Sanctions
Based on Alleged Violation of a Court Order
Absent from Plaintiff’s motion is the actual legal standard required for imposition of
sanctions, and certainly no argument or citation exist in this case to carry the burden of
establishing the factors. In light of the fact that Ms. Maxwell has complied, Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate the minimum hurdle for any sanction. Thus, the factors are not addressed here, nor
can they be addressed on Reply. What is clear is that the sanction of an adverse inference is not
identified as a sanction that should or could be considered under the rules concerning the failure
to comply with a Court Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A).
b. Controlling Law Prohibits an Adverse Inference Instruction
An adverse inference instruction is considered an “extreme sanction” that “should not be
given lightly.” Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). More
importantly Plaintiff completely ignores the 2015 changes to Fed. R. Civ. P 37(e)(2), which now
permits an adverse inference instruction only when the court finds that a spoliating party
purposefully and willfully destroys evidence and that party “acted with the intent to deprive
another party of the information's use in the litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2). The new Rule
37 “rejects cases such as Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99
8
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 24 of 42
(2d Cir. 2002)5, that authorize the giving of adverse-inference instructions on a finding of
negligence or gross negligence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2) Advisory Committee's Note to 2015
Amendment; see also Thomas v. Butkiewicus, No. 3:13-CV-747 (JCH), 2016 WL 1718368, at *7
(D. Conn. Apr. 29, 2016) (recognizing abrogation of Residential Funding). There is no claim of
spoliation – no information has been lost or destroyed since the threat or initiation of litigation
when there would have been a duty to preserve. There is no bad faith. Ms. Maxwell has
completely complied with all Court Orders and there are no accessible accounts or electronic
devices that have not been searched.
i. The cases cited by Plaintiff are not the controlling standards, and Plaintiff
fails to establish the elements required for an adverse inference
Plaintiff relies heavily on her previously briefed motion requesting an adverse inference
relying on factors in a single case, Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306
F.3d 99, 108 (2nd Cir. 2002). This case sets forth the standard for an adverse inference based on
the inherent powers of the Court (not under Rule 37(b)) where the party failed to produce
relevant documents prior to the commencement of trial. Id. (“where, as here, an adverse
inference instruction is sought on the basis that the evidence was not produced in time for use
at trial, the party seeking the instruction must show (1) that the party having control over the
evidence had an obligation to timely produce it; (2) that the party that failed to timely produce
the evidence had “a culpable state of mind”; and (3) that the missing evidence is “relevant” to the
party’s claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that
claim or defense”). By contrast, however, courts have repeatedly noted that an adverse
inference, and application of the Residential Funding test, are not appropriate for a mere delay in
production, especially when all documents are produced prior to depositions and trial. See
5
This is the primary case relied on by Plaintiff in support of both of her Motions for an adverse inference.
9
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 25 of 42
Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., No. 11CV01416, 2012 WL 3601087 (S.D.N.Y. June 22,
2012) (refusing to grant adverse inference instruction where Plaintiff did not confer to obtain
requested discovery, and noting “Plaintiff does not cite to a single case where an adverse
inference instruction was ordered based on the late production of a document”).6 Here, there was
no delay in production – there was and is nothing additional to produce. All documents were
produced well in advance of trial, prohibiting an adverse inference.
Even if the Residential Funding factors were applicable, Plaintiff fails to carry her burden
of proving those factors are present in this case. Defendant does not contest that she is obligated
to comply with this Court’s Orders. She has done so. She has collected all of her electronically
stored information, and run all agreed upon search terms – and then re-run the searches when
Plaintiff further expanded her demands. The result of the application of these search terms is
proof that she has been compliant with her discovery obligations all along. No new non-
privileged documents were captured through utilization of the process demanded by Plaintiff. As
Ms. Maxwell previously stated in response to the Motion for forensic examination, she had run
comprehensive search terms, thoroughly reviewed her records and previously produced all
responsive documents in her possession.7
The second factor, that “the party that failed to timely produce the evidence had ‘a
culpable state of mind’” is likewise lacking. There is no claim of Defendant acting with a
6
See also Phoenix Four, Inc., No. 05 CIV. 4837(HB), 2006 WL 1409413, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006)
(holding that a sanction as severe as an adverse inference was not warranted where defendants came forward with
the evidence, even though it was after the close of discovery); Williams v. Saint–Gobain Corp., No. 00 Civ. 502,
2002 WL 1477618, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. June 28, 2002) (holding that no basis for adverse inference instruction existed
where defendant failed to produce emails until the eve of trial and there was no evidence of bad faith); In re A & M
Florida Properties II, LLC, No. 09-15173 (AJG), 2010 WL 1418861, at *6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2010)
(declining to impose adverse inference instruction where documents were belatedly produced, but there was no bad
faith).
7
Plaintiff’s argument that she has been or will be prejudiced is illogical given that there are no documents
that have not been produced, and there never have been any responsive documents missing from production.
10
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Docume
giuffre-maxwell
Unknown
5 pages
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 1
(File Under Seal)
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 5
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff,
Case No.:
-against- 15-cv-07433-RWS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
**CONFIDENTIAL**
Videotaped deposition of GHISLAINE
MAXWELL, taken pursuant to subpoena, was
held at the law offices of BOIES
SCHILLER & FLEXNER, 575 Lexington
Avenue, New York, New York, commencing
April 22, 2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above
date, before Leslie Fagin, a Court
Reporter and Notary Public in the State
of New York.
- - -
MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES
1200 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10026
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 5
Page 84
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 30 girls --
3 A. I did not count the number of girls
4 and I did read the police report. I can only
5 testify to what I read.
6 Q. So you are aware that the police
7 report contains reports from 30 underage
8 girls?
9 A. I can't testify to what the girls
10 said. I can only testify to the fact that I
11 read a police report that stated that.
12 Q. Were you working for Jeffrey -- you
13 said you worked for him off an on until 2009,
14 is that correct?
15 A. I helped out from time to time.
16 Q. So you were working with him during
17 the time period when these underage girls
18 were visiting Jeffrey's home?
19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the
20 form and foundation.
21 A. I was not -- what year, I need
22 years.
23 Q. How about let's say 2005?
24 A. I'm not sure I was at the house at
25 all in 2005, maybe one day, maybe.
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 5
Page 85
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 Q. How about 2004?
3 A. I was present for his mother's --
4 his mother died in 2004 so I was there for
5 his mother's death and the funeral and I was
6 at the house maybe a handful of days, again.
7 Q. I would like to direct you to, you
8 have it pulled together now, it's page 39,
9 Bates stamped Giuffre 00040?
10 A. Can you repeat that, please.
11 Q. Sure. 00040.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. At the top of that document, about
14 three lines down, you see the redacted
15 portions where there is black so it blacks
16 out the name.
17 A. I see black redacted portions.
18 Q. That's a black redaction of the
19 name of the minor and there is -- I will
20 represent for the record that's what it is.
21 You can contest that but I'm not asking about
22 the name of the minor.
23 Five lines down, it says, She was
24 just 16 years of age.
25 Do you see that?
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 5
Page 166
1 G Maxwell - Confidential
2 A. How would I possibly, these were
3 messages taken when I was not at the house
4 and I have no idea who they are nor how old
5 they are nor anything.
6 Q. How do you know you weren't at the
7 house on this day?
8 A. I was hardly at the house in 2005.
9 Q. So you could have been there, you
10 just don't know?
11 A. In the five days I might have been
12 there in 2005, I suppose it's possible but
13 it's unlikely.
14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you know why this
15 isn't redacted if you are representing
16 all the names of people who are underage
17 have been redacted from these records.
18 MS. McCAWLEY: I think it was -- my
19 assumption is it was a miss by the
20 police department.
21 Q. I will direct your attention to SAO
22 3008 so you will skip a page and go back,
23 it's the final page in the message pads and
24 you will see on the top left for Jeffrey, on
25 6/1/2005 from Jean Luc Brunel with a phone
MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES
giuffre-maxwell
Unknown
27 pages
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------X
......
.........................................
VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff,
v.
15-cv-07433-RWS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------X
Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and
Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal
Laura A. Menninger
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C.
East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
303.831.7364
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 2
I. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS CLAIMED
UNANSWERED REQUIRES DENIAL OF THE MOTION ............................................. 8
II. THE REQUESTED TOPIC AREAS ARE CUMULATIVE, DUPLICATIVE AND NO
GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR PERMITTING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION TIME ...... 10
III. COUNSEL INSTRUCTED MAXWELL NOT TO ANSWER TO ENFORCE THE
COURT’S ORDER AND TO PREVENT HARASSMENT BY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL
.................................................................................................................................... 13
A. Objected to Question Number 1: ....................................................................................... 13
B. Objected to Questions Number 2 and 3. ............................................................................ 14
C. “Objected” to Question Number 4. .................................................................................... 15
D. “Objected” to Question Number 5 ..................................................................................... 15
E. “Objected” to Question Number 6 ..................................................................................... 15
F. Objected to Question Number 7 ........................................................................................ 16
G. Objection to Question Number 8 ....................................................................................... 17
H. Objections to Questions 9, 10, and 11. .............................................................................. 17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .............................................................................................. 25
i
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, by and through her counsel, hereby submits the following
Response in Opposition (“Response”) to Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and
Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal (“Motion”), as follows:
INTRODUCTION
This lawsuit presents one relatively simple question: is Plaintiff’s claim that she was
sexually abused, sexually trafficked and held as a “sex slave” by Jeffrey Epstein between 1999
and 2002 “with the assistance and participation of” Ms. Maxwell substantially true? Plaintiff
already has admitted, under oath, that substantial portions of her story are untrue; she has so far
refused to say under oath what other lies printed by the press about her story are untrue, but has
admitted that journalist Sharon Churcher “got it wrong.” For example, Plaintiff has admitted that
she did not meet Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein in 1999 (or in 1998) at the age of 14 or 15, as she
previously has sworn and as she told members of the press. Declaration of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
“Pagliuca Decl.”), Composite Ex. A (Testimony of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre on May 3, 2016), at
26-27, 220-226. Plaintiff admitted that she did not spend her sweet 16th birthday with Mr.
Epstein and Ms. Maxwell as she included in her book manuscript, her Jane Doe #102 Complaint
and in the story she sold to the Daily Mail. Id. at 102. Plaintiff’s counsel has admitted that it
was a mistake to sue Alan Dershowitz for defamation, after he provided them documentation
establishing he never was in their client’s presence, nor did he have sex with her. Pagliuca Decl.,
Ex. B. And Plaintiff’s story about attending a dinner party with on Little St. James
was debunked by none other than . Id.
Yet, undeterred, Plaintiff and her counsel continue to use this lawsuit to seek discovery of
matters far afield of the one simple question posed in the defamation claim, to explore events
that occurred well past 2002, when Plaintiff lived in Australia and had no contact with Ms.
Maxwell or Mr. Epstein. The current witch-hunt has now expanded into the private personal life
1
of defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The harassing, extended, repetitive, cumulative and redundant
continued deposition of Ms. Maxwell should be concluded.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On April 22, 2016 Plaintiff deposed Ms. Maxwell for a full seven hours. The transcript
of that deposition is 418 pages long. Ms. Maxwell did not assert any privilege against self-
incrimination and was questioned extensively about, among other things: her relationship with
Jeffrey Epstein, her knowledge of “sexual trafficking,” sex with minors, non-consensual sex, sex
involving the Plaintiff and others, sex involving Plaintiff and Mr. Epstein, sex involving the
Plaintiff and Ms. Maxwell, sex involving the Plaintiff, Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein. She was
asked questions about whether she recruited girls for Ms. Epstein to have sex with, her
knowledge of Ms. Epstein’s sex with a number of people. She was asked questions about “sex
toys,” pornographic images, child pornography, and nudity at Mr. Epstein’s house. Ms. Maxwell
answered these questions, and many others, to the best of her ability. See Pagliuca Decl.,
Composite Exhibit C (Transcript of (First) Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell on April 22, 2016).
During her first deposition, Ms. Maxwell was freely questioned and testified about the
following:
She never had a sexual encounter with Plaintiff, ever. Id. at 76:3-11.
She never saw Plaintiff massage Mr. Epstein. Id. at 75:12-24.
She never saw Jeffrey Epstein and Plaintiff in a sexual situation. Id. at 75:23- 76:l.
She did not have a set of outfits for Plaintiff to wear. Id. at 69:1-24, and again at 117:4-
15.
She had no knowledge of any non-consensual sex acts involving Mr. Epstein. Id. at 55:5-
15.
She never had non-consensual sex with anyone. Id. at 62:19-20 & 63:23-25.
2
She did not train Plaintiff to “recruit” other girls for massages or sexual massages. Id. at
81:21- 82:7.
She never arranged for or asked Plaintiff to have sex with anyone. Id. at 58:6-11.
She never gave a massage with Plaintiff in the room with Mr. Epstein. Id. at 19:16-21.
She never gave a massage to Mr. Epstein with a female that was under the age of 18 in
the room. Id. at 22:11-14.
She never observed Mr. Epstein having a massage given by an individual, a female, who
was under the age of 18. Id. at 22:15-18.
She never had sex with . Id. at 38:19-23.
She never observed Jeffrey Epstein having sex with Id. at 38:24- 39:2.
She was unaware if Jeffrey Epstein was having sexual contact with when
she was 13 years old. Id. at 39:3-5.
She was never involved in an orgy with . Id. at 40:16-18.
She had no knowledge of whether was involved with sex with Jeffrey
Epstein and girls over the age of 18. Id. at 46:13-16.
She had no knowledge of whether recruited other girls for sex with Jeffrey
Epstein. Id. at 46:17-21.
She did not know the precise nature of Jeffrey Epstein’s relationship with . Id.
at 48:5-6.
She was unaware of any sexual acts with masseuses and Jeffrey Epstein that were non-
consensual. Id. at 55:5-15.
She discussed her knowledge of . Id. at 55:17- 56:20.
She had no knowledge of telling the police that Jeffrey Epstein sexually
assaulted her. Id. at 56:16-20.
She had no knowledge of having sex with Jeffrey Epstein. Id. at 65:10-15.
She never had sex with Jeffrey Epstein, Plaintiff, and . Id. at 65:8-10.
She had no knowledge of bringing females to the house to massage Jeffrey
Epstein. Id. at 67:5-13.
She had no knowledge about a basket of sex toys. Id. at 70:25- 75:4 and again at 242:3-
243:13.
3
She was unaware of Jeffrey Epstein ever having his nipples pinched while having sex
with a minor. Id. at 82:23-83:4.
She never met anyone underage in London to provide a massage for Jeffrey Epstein. Id.
at 97:25-98:5.
She had no knowledge about bringing girls to Jeffrey Epstein for the
purpose of providing massages. Id. at 99:2-21.
She never participated in obtaining visas for foreign girls. Id. at 100:9.
She did not believe it was Jeffrey Epstein’s preference to start sex with a massage. Id. at
100:10-20.
She never trained a female under the age of 18 at Jeffrey Epstein’s home. Id. at 157:5-10.
She has no knowledge whether ever asked females to come over to see
Jeffrey Epstein for the purpose of sexual massage. Id. at 268:21-24.
She had no knowledge of any sexual relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and
Id. at 305:5-23.
She was aware of and understood that she was Jeffrey Epstein’s girlfriend
and spent a lot of time with him in 1999-2000. Id. at 364:5-365:11.
Because Ms. Maxwell had not, by virtue of becoming a defendant in this case, injected
her entire personal sexual history into this litigation counsel for Ms. Maxwell, during the first 7
hour deposition, instructed Ms. Maxwell to not answer questions related to consensual sexual
activity with adults. No objection was raised, and no instruction to not answer lodged, to
questions regarding Ms. Maxwell’s knowledge of sexual activity (consensual or non-consensual)
by Mr. Epstein or others with children, Plaintiff, or other persons. No objections were made, or
instructions to not answer, to questions about whether Ms. Maxwell assisted Mr. Epstein in the
alleged sexual trafficking of the Plaintiff from 1999 to 2002. Ms. Maxwell answered questions
about sexual trafficking, prostitution, her job with Mr. Epstein, and police reports related to Mr.
Epstein. Ms. Maxwell was questioned, without any instruction not to answer, about message
pads, phone lists, the hiring practices related to massages, hiring practices in general, whether
Jeffrey Epstein had a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages and whether Jeffrey
4
Epstein’s assistants would arrange times for underage girls to perform sexual massages.
Pagliuca Decl., Ex. C at 253-55. She was extensively questioned about various message pads
recovered from Jeffrey Epstein’s home by the Palm Beach Police Department. Id. at 147:23-
167:23. She was extensively questioned regarding her knowledge about . Id. at
307:6-312:12. She was extensively questioned about a list containing names and phone numbers
under the heading “Massage Florida.” Id. at 313:18 – 334:8. Simply stated, with the exception of
her adult consensual sex life, Plaintiff was free to question Ms. Maxwell, and in fact questioned
Ms. Maxwell on any topic. Importantly, Plaintiff’s original motion recognized this fact, seeking
only to response Plaintiff on one subject: “Defendant should be ordered to sit for a follow-up
deposition and directed to answer questions regarding her knowledge of alleged “adult” sexual
activity.” Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition Questions, WHEREFORE Clause, at 10
(Doc. # 143).
5
Presumably the Court did not authorize repetitive questioning about
topics that had been asked and answered in the prior deposition.
. The instruction not to not to answer questions
about sexual activity and massages was limited to any activity involving consensual adults. See
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition Questions at 10 (Doc. #143).
Given that the majority of the questions had already been posed and answered over a full
seven-hour time period one might reasonably assume that Ms. Maxwell’s second deposition
would be short and direct. Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s counsel chose to ignore the Court’s Order,
repeatedly sought to reopen previously completed deposition topics and tried to ask questions
about new topics completely unrelated to the limited purpose authorized. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D
(Transcript of (Second) Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell on July 22, 2016). The entire
deposition was far beyond the specific request made by Plaintiff in her Motion that Ms. Maxwell
6
be required to answer questions about adult consensual sexual activity – the only questions on
which instructions were given in the first deposition. Yet, broad latitude was given by counsel in
the deposition, permitting pages of duplicative, redundant examination on countless topics which
had already been asked and fully answer in the first disposition. By way of example:
First Deposition Second Deposition
Duplicative Topic of Questioning
(Exhibit C) (Exhibit D)
Circumstances surrounding her first meeting of 14:9-19:18
Plaintiff and if she held herself out as a 35:11-36:20 65:4-70:5
professional masseur 213:5-220:3
12:22-14:8;
If she saw women under the age of 18 (first
22:15-24:9;
deposition) or 21 (second deposition) at 71:20-73:18
99:2-100:4;
Epstein’s houses
122:19-122:14
Her knowledge of , her job, how she 59:7-63:16;
was hired, and if Ms. Maxwell ever received 286:23-293:13; 74:2-78:191
massages from 307:6-312:12
Knowledge of or meetings with 55:20-56:20; 95:14-98:10;
62:21-25 103:19-113:22
Her knowledge of and 120:22-122:5;
40:19-47:14
interactions with Mr. Epstein 126:22-129:12
1
Consistent with Ms. Maxwell’s testimony,
.
7
First Deposition Second Deposition
Duplicative Topic of Questioning
(Exhibit C) (Exhibit D)
47:15-49:18;
Her knowledge of , when she last 56:21-57:11;
spoke to , what job was, 254:25-256:8; 117:14-118:9;
and her knowledge of sexual relations between 328:21-329:6; 125:2-126:21
llen and Mr. Epstein 396:4-21;
411:14-412:22
329:7-330:12;
Her interactions with 129:15-132:6
331:9-335:10
379:22-380:18;
Her knowledge concerning 99:14-21; 150:6-17
sexual activities or interaction with Mr. Epstein 116:19-117:3;
166:21-167:23
Her knowledge of the identities of a list name 312:15-334:8 179:16 -184:15
titled “Massage – Florida” from an address book
marked in the first deposition and discussed at
length
THE QUESTIONS
I. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
CLAIMED UNANSWERED REQUIRES DENIAL OF THE MOTION
Plaintiff broadly, and inaccurately, claims now that at her second deposition, Ms.
Maxwell “refused to answer many questions” related to sexual activity or “refused to answer
questions about subject integral to this lawsuit.” Motion at 3-4. This assertion is patently
dispelled by a review of the second deposition transcript which is 193 pages long. Pagliuca
Decl., Ex. D. The deposition began at 9:04 a.m. and concluded at 2:51 p.m. The total time Ms.
Maxwell testified in this deposition was 4 hours and 52 minutes for a total combined deposition
8
time of 11 hours and 52 minutes. A total of 787 questions were posed to Ms. Maxwell in the
second deposition. Ms. Maxwell answered every question posed to her that fell within the scope
of the June 20 Order, many that were outside the scope, and countless questions that had been
asked and answered in her first deposition.
It is difficult to discern precisely what questions Plaintiff is complaining about in her
Motion because of her generalized and non-specific complaints. Plaintiff fails to cite to a single
instruction not to answer that 1) falls within the scope to the Court’s Order and 2) that was not
answered when properly rephrased to fall within the scope of the Order. S.D.N.Y. Local Rules
require that:
A party seeking or opposing relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37
inclusive, or making or opposing any other motion or application, shall
quote or attach only those portions of the depositions, interrogatories,
requests for documents, requests for admissions, or other discovery or
disclosure materials, together with the responses and objections
thereto, that are the subject of the discovery motion or application, or
that are cited in papers submitted in connection with any other motion or
application. See also Civil Local Rule 37.1.
The failure to comply with Rule 37.1 and set forth the particular questions or responses
Plaintiff claims are deficient is “enough to require denial of the motion.” Sibley v. Choice Hotels
Int'l, No. CV 14-634 (JS) (AYS), 2015 WL 9413101, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2015) (denying
motion to compel where party failed to identify the specific questions and responses to
interrogatories claimed deficient); see also Kilkenny v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, No. 05 CIV.
6578NRB, 2008 WL 371808, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2008) (denying motion to compel where
specific questions and objection were not provided, noting rule 37.1 is “This is not an academic
or ritual requirement. . . . Court cannot be tasked with performing the functions of Kilkenny's
legal counsel [by identifying claimed deficiencies] and thereby seen as advocating for one party
over another.”; Frattalone v. Markowitz, No. 91 CIV. 5854 (LMM), 1994 WL 494878, at *3
9
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 1994) (permitting reopening of deposition only if party could specifically
identify areas of inquiry previously foreclosed). To the extent Plaintiff has not identified specific
questions that Ms. Maxwell was instructed not to answer she has waived any issue related to the
questioning.
II. THE REQUESTED TOPIC AREAS ARE CUMULATIVE, DUPLICATIVE
AND NO GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR PERMITTING ADDITIONAL
DEPOSITION TIME
Plaintiff’s proffered “topic areas” that she would like to re-open the deposition to cover –
again – makes clear that what she is asking for is additional time – in excess of the almost 12
hours she has already had – to ask questions that have already been answered. This is
impermissible under Rule 30(d)(1) which prohibits depositions in excess of 7 hours seeking the
type of duplicative and cumulative testimony Plaintiff seeks.
The only testimony cited in the Motion are instances in which Ms. Maxwell had already
fully testified on the topic area. First, she cites questions concerning , a witness
who has been deposed in this case. What Plaintiff ignores is that Ms. Maxwell had already been
fully examined concerning her knowledge about and answered every question, with
the exception of a single questions regarding adult consensual sexual activity which was
answered in the second deposition. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. C at 59:7-63:16; 286:23-293:13;
307:6-312:12 & Ex. D at 77:24 – 78:6 (“Q. Did Mr. Epstein, insofar as you believe, engage in
sexual activities with ? A. I would not know. I would say no. Q. Did you engage in
sexual activities with ? A. No.”). Despite this, leeway was given, and 5 pages of
repeated testimony concerning commenced and was permitted until the duplicative
nature of the testimony was simply too much. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D at 74:2-78:19.
10
Second, Plaintiff inaccurately complains that Ms. Maxwell refused to answer questions
concerning sexual activity involving two women named . Motion at 6.
Not so. Ms. Maxwell answered questions for fully 13 pages of her deposition concerning
. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D at 95-98 and 103-113. Ms. Maxwell answered well over 76
questions relating to including who they are, when she met them,
whether she ever saw them at Epstein’s homes or her own home, whether Epstein ever had sex
with them, whether they worked for Epstein, whether they flew on planes together, gave or
received massages, participated in any sexual activities with one another, where they lived, the
description of their living environments, and whether journalist Vicky Ward ever told Ms.
Maxwell that Epstein had engaged in sexual activities. Id. This was on top of the questions that
Ms. Maxwell had already answered at her first deposition that were nearly identical: who are
, how did you meet them, whether they ever made any allegations of sexual abuse by
Epstein, or whether Ms. Maxwell had ever had non-consensual sexual contact with
Pagliuca Decl., Ex. C at 95:14 -98:10 & 103:19-113:22. In fact, at the first deposition,
Ms. Maxwell did not refuse to answer a single question regarding . Thus, all of the
questions at the second deposition were redundant, cumulative and outside of the Court’s Order.
The only question that Ms. Maxwell refused to answer was: “What did Vicky Ward tell you
about when she talked to you?,” after which she answered another 10 pages of
questions that centered around whether Vicky Ward had said specific things regarding
Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D at 103-113. Ms. Maxwell has already flatly denied she had any
knowledge of the allegations posited by reporter Vicky Ward.
Plaintiff is not permitted to re-depose Ms. Maxwell on issues already covered, or which
she had the opportunity to cover, in the first 7-hour deposition, particularly in light of the
11
additional 4.5 hours permitted in the second deposition and the fact that she answered in the
second deposition the only pertinent questions permitted by the Court Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(d)(1) (“the court must allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) if needed
to fairly examine the deponent”) (emphasis added). Rule 30(d)(1) requires a court to guard
against redundant or disproportionate discovery, stating that any additional deposition time must
be consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2), prohibiting, among other things, cumulative and
duplicative testimony. The duplicative nature of the “topics” requested by Plaintiff is
demonstrated by the previously cited testimony. It is compounded by the fact that
has fully testified concerning how she came to work for Epstein, what she did while working for
him, and how she was paid. See This Response at 20-21, infra. The redundancy of the requested
testimony (much of which is outside the scope of the Order) prohibits a finding of good cause for
reopening – yet again – Ms. Maxwell’s testimony. See Kleppinger v. Texas Dep't of Transp.,
283 F.R.D. 330, 333 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (“a party seeking a court order to extend the duration of
the examination must show ‘good cause’ to justify such an order” including showing information
is not duplicative and cumulative).
Of course, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel had no desire to subject Ms. Maxwell to a third
deposition, thus permitting many questions that far exceeded the scope of the Order. When
called on to explain how extraneous questions were proper, Plaintiff’s counsel refused to proffer
why certain questions were within the Court’s order leaving Ms. Maxwell’s counsel no option,
on a few occasions, to instruct Ms. Maxwell to not answer. Plaintiff’s counsel’s refusal to
simply explain how objectionable questions were within the scope of the permitted deposition
makes clear that they were not, and should act as a waiver. See, e.g., Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D at
99-101.
12
III. COUNSEL INSTRUCTED MAXWELL NOT TO ANSWER TO ENFORCE
THE COURT’S ORDER AND TO PREVENT HARASSMENT BY
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL
The only questions to which counsel for Ms. Maxwell instructed her not to answer were
those that she had already answered or were outside the Court’s Order permitting a re-opening of
the deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) (instruction not to answer appropriate “when necessary
to … enforce a limitation ordered by the court”). Plaintiff loosely points to eleven questions in
her Motion. She omits parts in which the question had already been answered, and she implies
an instruction not to answer where none was given. None of the cited questions merits the re-
opening of Ms. Maxwell’s deposition for a third bite at the apple.
A. Objected to Question Number 1:
“So how did it happen, Ms. Maxwell, that who had been hired to answer phones,
ended up giving massages to you and Mr. Epstein.”
In Ms. Maxwell’s first, 7 hour, deposition she was questioned extensively about her
relationship with . See Pagliuca Decl. Ex. C at 59-63; 112-113; & 307-309.
Consistent with the Defendant’s position at that time, Plaintiff was free to ask, and asked,
questions about with the exception of consensual adult sexual contact. The only
instruction to not answer was limited to consensual adult sexual contact, of which there was
none. (Although in fact, Ms. Maxwell testified in her first deposition that the massages with
did not involve sex.). See Pagliuca Decl. Ex. C at 61:14-15..
In Ms. Maxwell’s second, 4.5 hour deposition, she was again questioned extensively
about . The questioning begins on page 74 of the transcript. Plaintiff’s counsel
asked dozens of questions about without any instruction to not answer. When the
questions became repetitive to the questions asked at the first deposition and strayed outside the
13
Court’s Order counsel for Ms. Maxwell sought guidance form the Court, which was not
available.
Notwithstanding that the examination was repetitive, Ms. Maxwell responded to
questions, without instruction not to answer, that were within the Court’s Order. She testified
that she did not have any sexual relationship or contact with and was unaware of
any sexual contact between Mr. Epstein and . See Pagliuca Decl. Ex. D at 77:24-
78:6. She also testified about and massages, both in her first deposition and the
second. See Pagliuca Decl. Ex. C at 59-63; 112-113; & 307-309 and Ex. D at 74-82:8.
When the question about for was asked for the fourth
time, the instruction not to answer was given. These questions had been asked in the first
deposition, could have been asked in greater detail in the first deposition, and were answered in
both depositions prior to the instruction not to answer being given:
and sometime after that went to massage school and began giving massages. Ms.
Maxwell was not sure how the transition occurred but believed “that she went to massage school
and became a professional masseuse.” Id., at 75:10-11.
B. Objected to Questions Number 2 and 3.
“Did Mr. Epstein pay for the massages that she gave Mr. Epstein?”
“Do you know how much Mr. Epstein paid to give massages?”
Plaintiff has selectively and misleadingly provided only a portion of the transcript related
to this issue and ignores the fact that Plaintiff, in the first deposition, asked questions on the same
topic. Moreover, Ms. Maxwell previously testified that she did not pay and did not
know who paid her. See Pagliuca Decl. Ex. C at 59-63; 112-113; & 307-309 and Ex. D at 82:2-
7.
14
C. “Objected” to Question Number 4.
“Do you know if was ever at ?”
This question is completely outside the Court’s June 20, 2016 Order as it does not relate
to Ms. Maxwell, Mr. Epstein, massages, sex, or any property identified in this case. Regardless,
the witness was never instructed to not answer the question and did not refuse to answer
questions about . After the question was posed, counsel for Ms. Maxwell simply
asked for an explanation as to how the question was within the Court’s Order. The witness was
not instructed not to answer. It appears that after considering the request for a proffer as to how
the question was within the Court’s Order, the question was withdrawn and a different question
was posed: “Mr. Boies: Let me approach it this way.” … Did Ms. Ward tell you that?” The
questioning about continues many pages thereafter. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D at 99-
113.
D. “Objected” to Question Number 5
Without any record support Plaintiff claims that “Defendant’s counsel also stopped a line
of questioning in which defendant was asked if she recalled several girls brought
over to give a ‘massage’ to Epstein.” Plaintiff cites no specific instruction not to answer because
one was never given. Ms. Maxwell answered questions about and was questioned
extensively regarding lists of names, about which Ms. Maxwell had no knowledge. Plaintiff was
not forced to “cease questioning” about any person. The questioning occurred and Ms. Maxwell
responded.
E. “Objected” to Question Number 6
“Was there a list that was kept of women or girls who provided massages?”
The “list” was introduced as Exhibit 13 to Ms. Maxwell’s first deposition. Ms. Maxwell
was questioned extensively about the “list” and testified, without objection about the list. In her
15
second deposition, the same Exhibit 13 was introduced and Ms. Maxwell was asked, without
objection, questions relating to specific names on Exhibit 13. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. C at 312-
334 and Ex. D at 179- 89.
Exhibit 13 was a document prepared by someone other than Ms. Maxwell, was not
maintained by Ms. Maxwell and over which Ms. Maxwell had no control. Given the extensive
testimony on the subject in both depositions, it was appropriate to instruct the witness to not
answer the question. This debate, however is unnecessary because the question was asked again
in a slightly different form and answered: Q: “Did you, or insofar as you are aware anyone,
maintain a list of females that provided massage services to Mr. Epstein at his residences?” A: “I
don’t know anything about a list.” Id., Ex. D at 185:13-20. No follow up questions were asked
after this answer.
F. Objected to Question Number 7
“In 2005, were you aware of any effort to destroy records of messages you had taken of
women who had called Mr. Epstein in the prior period?”
Ms. Maxwell was previously deposed about documents purportedly seized when Mr.
Epstein’s house was searched by the Palm Beach Police Department. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. C
at 312-19.
The Court’s June 20, Order did not reopen the deposition to allow for baseless questions
about the destruction of evidence in 2005. Alleged destruction of records has nothing to do with
any of the 8 areas that the Court addressed. Accordingly, the objection is well founded.
Plaintiff’s tortured explanation about how the question fits into the Court’s Order is nonsense.
16
G. Objection to Question Number 8
“In terms of preparing for this deposition, what documents did you review?”
Ms. Maxwell was instructed to not answer the question as it related to privileged
communications between Ms. Maxwell and counsel. Ms. Maxwell was asked if any of the
documents refreshed her recollection about any of the events that occurred. Her response was:
“No.” A follow up question was asked as to whether counsel provided Ms. Maxwell with any
documents and the answer was “One, I believe.”
The communication between Ms. Maxwell and counsel was privileged, did not refresh
her recollection, and the question was properly objected to.
H. Objections to Questions 9, 10, and 11.
17
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides, in relevant part, that "[p]arties may
obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of
any party ….” Although the scope of discovery is deliberately broad, a Court is not "required to
permit plaintiff to engage in a `fishing expedition' in the hope of supporting his claim." McGee v.
Hayes, 43 Fed.Appx. 214, 217 (10th Cir. 2002) (unpublished opinion); see also Tottenham v.
Trans World Gaming Corp., 2002 WL 1967023, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.2002) ("Discovery, however, is
not intended to be a fishing expedition, but rather is meant to allow the parties to flesh out
allegations for which they initially have at least a modicum of objective support") (quotations
omitted); Hardrick v. Legal Services Corp., 96 F.R.D. 617, 618 (D.D.C.1983) (courts should,
remain concerned about "fishing expeditions, discovery abuse and inordinate expense involved
in overbroad and far-ranging discovery requests.") (quotation omitted). "[B]road discovery is
not without limits and the trial court is given wide discretion in balancing the needs and rights of
both plaintiff and defendant." Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511, 1520 (10th
Cir.1995) (quotation omitted).
Although relevance in discovery is broader than that required for admissibility at trial,
"the object of inquiry must have some evidentiary value before an order to compel disclosure of
otherwise inadmissible material will issue." Zenith Electronics Corp. v. Exzec, Inc., No. 93 C
041, 1998 WL 9181, at *2 (N.D.I11.1998) (quoting Piacenti v. Gen. Motors Corp., 173 F.R.D.
221, 223 (N.D.I11.1997)). Courts have also recognized that "[t]he legal tenet that relevancy in
18
the discovery context is broader than in the context of admissibility should not be misapplied so
as to allow fishing expeditions in discovery." Id. (quotation omitted).
Under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure any party may move the court,
for good cause shown, for a protective order regarding pretrial discovery “which justice requires
to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or
expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Although the Rule contains no specific reference to privacy or
to other rights or interests that may be implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad purpose
and language of the Rule.” Seattle Times Company v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 (1984).
I. THE PURPORTED “FACTUAL BACKGROUND” CITED BY PLAINTIFF
IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THE CASE OR THIS MOTION
As Carl Sandburg famously said, “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is
against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like
hell.” In this case, rather than pound the table, Plaintiff tries to distract from the issues at hand –
whether Ms. Maxwell fully answered all questions posed – by pointing to selective misleading
quotes from various other witnesses who have been deposed in this case. When viewed in their
entirety, those witnesses neither support Plaintiff’s single claim for defamation nor her claim for
19
relief in this Motion. In direct contradiction to Plaintiff’s fabricated story, the witnesses actually
testified as follows:
20
Joe Recarey, the lead investigator of Jeffrey Epstein from the Palm Beach County Police
Department, testified at his deposition, that (in contrast to Plaintiff’s claims):
He and other investigators interviewed approximately 30-33 females in connection with
the case and identified approximately 17 victims. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. F at 179, 334.
Ms. Maxwell was never a suspect in their investigation, was not a target of the grand jury
investigation, nothing of Ms. Maxwell’s was seized from the home during execution of
the search warrant, and Ms. Maxwell was never observed at the Epstein home during the
police surveillance. Id. at 177, 211-12,214-16, 257.
None of the victims identified Ms. Maxwell as having “recruited” them to come give
massages to Epstein. Id. at 180-82, 191-93, 195.
None identified Ms. Maxwell as even being at the house when they were there, or paying
them, or instructing them on what to wear or how to act, or ever of having spoken to
them. Id.
None were ever sexually trafficked to other men; Jeffrey Epstein was the only person
with whom they had any sexual contact. Id. at 300-301.
None were ever asked to spend the night with Epstein, or travel with them. Id.
He did not observe any child pornography or any photos of naked women in the home
when he went to help install cameras to catch a thief in Mr. Epstein’s home in 2002 (who
turned out to be butler Juan Alessi). Id. at 288-90.
Juan Alessi. He served as the butler for approximately 10 year period at Mr. Epstein’s
home in Palm Beach. He testified that:
21
The majority of masseuses that came to the house were over the age of 20. Pagliuca
Decl., Ex. G at 200.
Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell found the massage therapists from the high-end spas
nearby, including the Breakers, Boca Raton and Mar-a-Lago, as Mr. Alessi confirmed
when he called them at their jobs to arrange home visits. Id. at 187-88.
The massage therapists were paid by check. Id. at 166.
Plaintiff was working at one of these spas when she was hired, wearing an old-
fashioned nurse’s type uniform. Id. at 174.
Contrary to Plaintiff’s main story, she did not go upstairs with Mr. Epstein the first
time she came over and he did not drive her home. Id. at 192.
22
CONCLUSION
Because Ms. Maxwell fully answered all questions within the Court’s Order (and many
that were not) at her continued deposition, she respectfully requests the Court deny Plaintiff’s
23
Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions
Filed Under Seal. Further, because Plaintiff brought this Motion without a valid basis to assert
that she refused to answer any question that was (a) within this Court’s Order and (b) not already
responded to either at her first deposition or during this deposition, Ms. Maxwell requests that
the fees and costs associated with defending this Motion be imposed on Plaintiff, her counsel or
both.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303.831.7364
Fax: 303.832.2628
lmenninger@hmflaw.com
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on August 8, 2016, I electronically served Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions
Filed Under Seal via ECF on the following:
Sigrid S. McCawley Paul G. Cassell
Meredith Schultz 383 S. University Street
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP Salt Lake City, UT 84112
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 cassellp@law.utah.edu
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
smccawley@bsfllp.com
mschultz@bsfllp.com
J. Stanley Pottinger
Bradley J. Edwards 49 Twin Lakes Rd.
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, South Salem, NY 10590
FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. StanPottinger@aol.com
425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
brad@pathtojustice.com
/s/ Nicole Simmons
Nicole Simmons
25