EFTA00191264.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 and #2 I. UNITED STATES JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS The parties hereby stipulate and agree that the following facts are not in dispute and may be accepted as true: 1. Between about 2001 and 2006, defendant Jeffrey Epstein (a—billienaire—with—signifteant politieal-eenneetiens)-sexually-abusedinere-than-40 enticed into prostitution minor girls at his mansion in West Palm Beach, Florida, and elsewhere. Among the girls he sexually sed so enticed were Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. Because Epstein, through others, used a means of interstate commerce and knowingly traveled in interstate commerce to engage in this conduct, te-abuse-Jane-Dee-#4-en43ane-Dee-#2-(and-the-ether-vietims), he committed violations of federal law, specifically repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. 2. In 2006, at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") opened an investigation into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and his personal assistants had used facilities of interstate commerce to induce young girls between the ages of thirteen and seventeen to engage in prostitution, among other offenses. The case was presented to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which accepted the case for investigation. The Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office was EFTA00191264 also investigating the-ease Epstein. See Declaration of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. at ¶¶ 1-2 (hereinafter "Edwards Declaration"). The FBI determined that both Jane Doe 111 and Jane Doe 112 were ictims of aexual 025auh6 by-Epstein-while-they-were-flinierS-iteginning-when-thest-wete-apprenimately-faufteen-years-ef age-and-apprenintately-thifteen-years-efage-respeetivelyrEdwards-1)eelaratien-at-11-2, 4. On about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe #1 a standard-G-V-RA-victim notification letter. See Edwards Declaration, Exhibit "A." The notification promises that the Justice Department would makes its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe #1's rights, including "[tjhe reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving . . . plea . . . ." The notification further explained that "[a]t this time, your case is under investigation." That notification meant that the FBI had identified Jane Doe #1 as a potential victim of a federal offense. and-as-senteene-preteeted-by-the-GVRA: 5. On about August 11, 2007, Jane Doe #2 received a standard CVRA victim notification letter. See Edwards Declaration, Exhibit "B." The notification promised that the Justice Department would makes its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe #2's rights, including "[t]he reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving . . . plea ...." The notification further explained that "[a]t this time, your case is under investigation." That notification meant that the FBI had identified Jane Doe #2 as a potential victim of a federal offense. aftd-as-semeene-proteeted-by the CVRA. 6. Early-in During the investigation, the FBI agents and the Assistant U.S. Attorney had-several meetinga met with Jane Doe #1. Jane Doe #2 was represented by counsel that was paid for by EFTA00191265 the criminal target Epstein and, accordingly, all contact was made through that attorney. Jane Doe #2 was openly hostile to the investigation, and told investigators that she was not a victim of any offense, that Epstein was an "awesome man," and that she would consider marrying Epstein. Jane Doe #2 actively avoided law enforcement's attempts to secure her cooperation with the investigation and contacted other potential witnesses and victims to advise them against cooperating with the authorities. Edwards Declaration at ¶ 5. 7. In and around September 2007, plea discussions took place between Jeffrey Epstein, represented by numerous attorneys (including lead criminal defense counsel Jay Leflcowitz), and the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of Florida.,] reptesentect-pciffier-ily-by Assistent-U7SrAttemey-ArMaFie--WHefefier-ae-plea-diseussiens-genecally-begen-from-Ihe premise-that-Bpstein-weekl-plead-guilty-et-least-ene-federal-felefty-effense-suFfeunding-his-sexual tissaults-ef-mere-than-40-miner-girls. Frem-ther-er the-numereus-elefense-attecneys-pfegressively uegetiated—rnere—favemble—prea—lems—se—thet—gpsteiii—weuld—tiltimetely—plead These plea negotiations eventually resulted in Epstein pleading guilty to enly two state court felony offenses with a recommendation of 18 months' imprisonment. end-would-serve-only-emu:4y Meny-ef-the-negetietiens-Eife-refleetefl-in-e-mails-between-Leflte lat Gepies Parts of the correspondence are attached as Exhibit J to the Edwards Declaration accompanying this filing (hereinafter cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced by Bates number stamp).' Because Epstein has moved to keep these documents from the public, they are at this time filed under seal with the Court. Threugh-ditigeot-effects7-e- Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received copies of half of the e- mail correspondence (the half reflecting Villafatta's communications to defense counsel) via discovery requests served upon counsel for Epstein in connection with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's civil suits against Epstein on about June 30, 2010. See Edwards Declaration at ¶¶20-22. EFTA00191266 8. At the time of plea discussions, AUSA Villafana had drafted the-UnSrAttomeyls-Oirme-had an 82-page prosecution memorandum outlining numerous federal sexual offenses committed by Epstein, and had prepared drafted a 53-page indictment. fer-numereus-federal-effenses. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 4. 9, le-8eptember4007r Assimant-UTS,Attomey-eisrUSM-ArMarie-V-iflafahe7-in-an-effert-te aveld—preseeuting—Epsteint—fer—Ws—rmmereus—sexual—effenses—against—ohildrenr prepesed—te Epstein's attorneys that rather than plea to any oharges relating to him molesting children, Epstein—sheukl—Mstead-plead-to-a-single-assaul4-eharge-invetving-a-telephene-eall-made-b.y Epstein-kvhilerhe-was-en-his-privatejetrifanring-the-telephene-eal41-Epstein-ymmed-his-persenal assistentr besley-Greffragainst-turning-ever-doeuments-and-eleerrenie-evidenee-respensive-te-a subpeena-issued-by-a-federal-grend--jury-iti-the-Seuthern-Distriet-ef--Flerida—inmestigating Eirsteinls-sen-offensesrU7SrAttemeyls-Cerrespondenee-M-497-587 7 The-eerrespondenee-alse-shows-that-AUSA-Wilatana-was-Mterested-in-finding-a-place-te eonelude-a-plea-bargain-that-weuld-effeetively-keerthe-yietims-from-leaming-what-,was haPpening- througil- the-Pressrghea ftil- lo-flefense-oounsel-0411-an- ' avelE1-the telephone-ealirlf-he-was-in-Mimi-Dade-Getinty-at-the-timerthen-l-ean-file-Me-eherge-in4he Distriet-GOUn-in-Miemir whieli-will-hopefully-mli-the-press-oeverage-signifteantly Atterneyls-Gerrespondenee-M-29,M5rVilktfaria-was-aware-that-most-of--the-vietims-ef-Epstein7 including Jane Doe //l and Jane Doe 112, resided outside the Miami area. On about September 24, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaha sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, regarding the agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit Dae-to-the-eonfidentiality-etaose-in-the-Agreentea4T EFTA00191267 the—e-moil—stetedi—that—the—Govemment—ond—Epstein12 / —eeunsel—weekl—negettete—betwe ' en thesetyes-abeet-whot-infecmakien-weuld-be4iselesed-te-the-vietims-about-the-agreenienu T-haftk-yeur Joy,--1-have-feewaFded-your-inessage-enly-te-Mex-fAeostqr Andy7 and-Rolandri-denit-antleipate-it-geing-any-fuither-than-thatrWhen-l-reeeive-the efiginalsr I-will-sign-and-retutmene-eepy-te-your-The-ether-will-be-pleeed-in-the ease-Cder whieh-will-be-kept-eenfulential-sinee-i4-also-eontoifis-idenWng informatien-about-the-gifis7 When-we-refteti-an-agreement-abeut-the-atteme representotive-fer-the-githr we ean-diweues.-what-I-ean4611-him-and-fhe-giris-ebew-the-aretweettirI4new-that Andrpremised-Ghief--Reiter-an-update-when-a-resehuien-was-aeltieved Retande-is-eftilingrbut-Relande-lenews-ne4-te-tell-Ghief--Reiter-about-the-money isuo, just about what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and the amount of time-that-has-been-agreed-terRelantionulso-is-felling-ChiefReiier-not4O-diselose the-eufeente-fe-anyene 4-2, On about September 25, 2007, AUSA Villafafia sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit stating.-11And-ean-we-itaye-a-eenferenee-edi-te-disesss what-I-may-diselese-to,the-gek-regarding-the-agreemenWl-U:SrAnemeyls-Cerrespondenee at-1-56: 13. On about September 26, 2007, AUSA. Villafafia sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit in-whielt-she-etatedailiay—Can-you-give-me-a-eall at-564-209--Enentl-this-mentifte-1-am-nweting-widt-the-agents-and-want-to-give-them4heir marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls." U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 359. The reasonable inference is that the "marching orders" agreed to between the Government and Epsteinls-tiefense-eounsel-was-that-ne-mention-weuld-be-made-octhe-ROli-pfeseeutiewegreement between-the-U,SrAttertieyls-Gfflee-anii-Epsteiur as-fie-subsequen4-inention-was-made-to-the vietims-of-the-nen-pcoseeutien-agreement, EFTA00191268 -14 On about September 27, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafafia sent an e-mail to Leflcowitz regarding an attorney who was under discussion to be a representative of victims of Epstein civil litigation, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit revealed te-an-atterney-filert-geariz-)r vihe-was-uader-4isettssien-te-be-a-representative-ef-vietims-ef Epstein-ls--sexeal-abuse-in-eivi-l-Litigatienr that-the-gevemmerd-was-in-the-preeess-ef-reaehing-a nen-pfeseeulien-agreemeni-with-Epstein- rli-e-Fflaikeenftrming-these-diselosures-stated iertls firm-has-rai-sed-a-nember-ef-geed-gnestiens-about-hew-theaf0-geitig-te-tet-pai l.k& Atterneyls-Cerrespendenee-at-1-6-1,-The-e-maii--went-en-te-state÷-sl-teldat-that-as-part-ef-Otlf agreement-we-fthe-federal-gevemment)-are-net-gekt-te-indiet-MFrEwsteinr but-give-him-afl-idea ef--the-ehaFges-that-we-had-planred-te-lyring-as-related-te-1-8-1 e-mail-alse aske4pennission from Epstein's counsel to send to Ooariz a copy of pans of the plea agreement: t2With-respeet-le-questien-2-4a-questien-frem-Geariz-regardieg*w}hen-v#111-14-be-pessible-te-see the-plea-agfeement-se-that-we-understand-exaetly-what-Epstein-eeneedes-te-in e 1-have-yeur-permissien-te-send-Bert-jest-that-seetien-ef-the-plea-agreement-that-appties-te-the demages-etaims-(4-weetd-reeemmend-sentting-paragraphs-7-threugh-1070r-at-least-7-and-8) 4-5 4ali-abeet- SePlember-2-57400.7r AS14,arA- ftfakt-sent-a-lettec-te4ey-lefkewitz--titat stated: in which she suggested that-the victims should be represemed by someone who was not an-expeFieneed-persenal-injery-attemey=tThey-fthe-ether-la neler-eensideratienf very-geed-persenal-Miury-lawyersr but-l-have-eeneerns-abest-whether-th e-an-inherent tensien-beeaue-they-may-feel-that-they-might-make-mere-meney,n--if-they-preeeed-entsitte-the terns-of the pela agreement. (Sorry 1-jual-have-a-bies-against-ptaintiffsz-atterneysel.687 Attorney's Correspondence at 157. Villafana continued to push Oeariz as the best choice, in EFTA00191269 beeause4t-weukl-redttee-publiei ne-niee4hing-about-Beft-feeafi*is-that-he4s-in-Miatni where-teheF-has-beea-almest-ne-eeverage-ef-the-eas idr 16. hi-a--letter-later-seftt-by-Jay-Lefkewitz--te-the-U,SrAuemey-fer-the-Seuihem-giStfie4-of Fie&lar Lefkewitz-s4a+e44hat-ASIM-V-iBafafla-MEIAtssitiueusl dden-fr-eni-hkn4he-faet-that Bert--Geatie-vms-a-friend-ef-V-illaftalals-beyftiewirTr1787-Aueseyls-Gerfeepenflenee-at-2677 Lefkowitz also stated that Villafafta had misleadingly used the term "friend" rather than the more aseufate-tenfflbeyfrienc122-te-41eseFibe-whe-hatl-reeeramen*led-Oeafizr-Mrat468rbefkowita ftwther-state4-the-Wllafafiafrrbeyfr-ientl-had-a-busiaess-relatieaship-witli-Oeerie-autl-that-the beyfFiencl-weukl-have-anausielly-benekted-from-the-preaumably-luerative-refeypal-ef-sexual assauit-eeses-againet-Epstein-te-gear-4rOn—Deeember-1-3;-200-71-WIlefaria-wrete-a-letter-te Lefleawki-te-eleny-these-aeeusatiensr -the-letter7-Villefatia-stateelt itu-sutzprised-by-yektr allegatiens-regarigrig-my-rele-beeause-l-thettght-that-we-Ilad-wecked-veFy-well-tegether-ie reseiving-this4ispeteri-elseram-surpr-isecl-beeaese-1-feel-that-1-bent-ever-backwarils-te-keep-in mind4he-effeet-that-the-agreement-weukl-have-en-MfrEpstein-and-te-make-sttre4hat-ytu-(entl-he) unclersteed-the-repereussiens-ef-the-agfeemeribt--kir 17. On about September 24, 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office reached an agreement whereby the United States would defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office accordingly entered into a "Non- Prosecution Agreement" (NPA) reflecting their agreement. Most-signiffeentlyr t The NPA gave Epstein a promise that he would not be prosecuted for a series of federal felony offenses involving the enticement into prostitution of a large number of minor girls. invoking-his seeual-abuse-ef-tnefe-thau-30-Fainer--girith The NPA instead allowed Epstein to plead guilty to two state felony offenses for solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for EFTA00191270 prostitution. The NPA also set up a procedure whereby a victim of Epstein's sexual abuse could obtain an attorney representative to proceed with a civil claim against Epstein, provided that the victim agreed to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (iTe7 which provided that the-each victim would recover agreed-to-seek no mere less than $150,000 in damages against Epstein — an amount that Epstein argued later was limited to no more than $50,000). See Edwards Declaration, Exhibit "C" (copy of the non-prosecution agreement). The agreement was signed by Epstein and his legal counsel, as well as the U.S. Attorney's Office, on about September 24, 2007. 18. A provision in the non-prosecution agreement made the agreement confidential secret. In particular, the agreement stated: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making the disclosure." Potenter-ing-into-suell-a-eanctdentiality-agreement, the 14-&-Attepneyls-Offiee-put-itself-M-a-pesitien-thet-Fretifying-the-er-ime-vietims-fineluding--Jane Doe ill and June Doe #2) of the non prosecution agreement would violate terms of the agreement—speeifteelly-the-eaufrdentiality-proyision,—AeeeFdiuglyr frem-September-24r 200-7 threugh-at-least-June-2008—a-period-of-meFe4hafFnifte-menths—the-U4-Artteratee-did not notify any of thc victims of the existence of the non prosecution agreement. 497 A reazonable inference from the evidence is that the U.S. Attorney's Office wanted the nea-meseemieri-agreement-kepr-frem-pulalie-view-beeause-ef-the-iniense-publie-eritieism-Mat would-have resulted from allowing a politically connected billionaire who had sexually abused more than 10 minor girls to escape from federal procccution with only a county court jail EFTA00191271 sentenee-oftel-beeause-ef-the-pessibility-that4he-vieties-eoulel-have-ebjeeted-te-the-agreement-io eeurt-and-preventeil-its-eensurnmatierh 20. The Non-Prosecution Agreement that had been entered into between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein was subsequently modified by an October 2007 Addendum and a December 19, 2007, letter from the U.S. Attorney to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez. See Supplemental Declaration of A. Marie Villafafia, doe. #35, at 1; U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 234-37. The—‘65,4atemeyss—Offiee-414--rtet-ootify-ony-ef-the-viatims-ef--the-existenee-efr-theee metlifteatiens-of-the-agreement-threogli-at-leost4ofte4008—a-peried-of-RIOre-than-si*-mooths7 On about August 14, 2008, Epstein's defense counsel told the U.S. Attorney's Office that they did not consider the December 19, 2007, letter to be operative. Id. 21. In October 2007, shortly after the initial plea agreement was signed, Jane Doe #1 was contacted to be advised regarding the resolution of the investigation. On October 26, 2007, Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards met in person with Jane Doe #1. The Special Agents explained that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges, he would be required to register as a sex offender for life, and he had made certain concessions related to the payment of damages to the victims, including Jane Doe #1. During this meeting, the agents explained that this would end the federal investigation of the case and no federal charges would be tiled. the-Speeiel-Agents-41€1-net-explain-thet-an-agreement-hed-alfeaely-been-signed-thet preeluile€1-any-proseetitierref--Epotein-fer-federal-ehorges-The-agents-eoukl-oot-have-revealefl this pan of the non prosecution agroement without violating the terms of the non prosecution agFeementr-Whet-her-the-ogenis-themselves4a4-been--incortned-ef--the-exietenee-ef-the-ften- preseeution-agreement-hy-the-LI47-Menwyls-Offiee-is-net-eertaiorReeause-the-plea-agreetnent EFTA00191272 had already been reached with Epstein, (ho agents made no attempt to secure Jane Doe ill's view on-the-preposed-resehitien-ef-the-easerEdwafds-Deelaratien-a4-11--7 22. Jane Doe # l's perception of the explanation provided by the Special Agents was that only the State part of the Epstein investigation had been resolved, and that the federal investigation would continue, possibly leading to a federal prosecution. Edwards Declaration at ¶ 8. a On about November 27, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit The e-mail-statedt—that-the-1478,Atiemeyls-Offtee-lieel-an-ebligatieft-te-netify4he-vietims-about-the plea-area:korai The-Umile4-Siates4as-e-siesiery-obligatienasikeler-411-Aet-of-3-004)49-nefifr theviefims-oftheamieipated-upeemingevenm-and-their-righie-asseeitried-with-the agreenteni-entered-inte-by-she-Uniied-StaiesLimet-Alrr Tomeffew-vAll-make-one-foll-week-sinee-yea-were-fewnefirnetified-ef-the seleetion,l-must-insist-that-the-vetting-preeess-eeme-te-on-enelrTheteferer unless yeu-previde-wie-with-a-goed-faith-ebjeetien-te-Judgeneleetien-fas-speeiel master-foc-seleeting-legal-eounsol-fer-vietito-pocsolog-olaims-agaiost-Epsteinl-by GOB—temerrewr Nevember—a8r 2007r 1—will—autherize—the—rietifieatieti—ef—the vietiwisT,Should-teti-give-ine-the-ge-head-en-iktdhum4-aad-Jesetthsbefg-seleetien by-GOB-temoffewr i-%411-simoltarteeusly-sead-yeu-a4raft-ef-the-lefterr ftetify-thearietims-by-letter-after-GOB-Thursdayl-Nevember-29.ffi UnSrAttemeyls-Gefrespendenee-at-2-5-5-(emphasis-rearrangeel* 24. On about November 29, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafafia sent a draft of a crime victim notification letter to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The notification letter explained: "I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have reached an agreement containing the following terms . . .." The letter then went on to explain that Epstein would plead guilty to two state offenses and receive an 18 month sentence. The-lefter-did-fiet expleiw-that-res-part-ef-the-agreemeot-witli-Epsteiartheaistiee-Depaftffient-liacl-previeusiy-agreeel EFTA00191273 ftet-te-preseente-EpsieMier-any-ef-the-numereus-federal-offenses-that-had-been-eemmittedr Attemeyls-C-eFrespendenee-at-2-56-597 25. Apparently-beeause-ef-eeneems-frern-SpsteinIs-atterneys; Because Epstein's attorneys sought higher review of the enforceability of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office never sent the proposed victim notification letter discussed in the previous paragraph to the victims. Instead, a misleading letter stating that the case was "currently under investigation" (described below) was sent in January 2008 and May 2008. At-ne4inie-before reaehing-nen-proseeutien-agmement-did-the-Justiee-Deparnnent-emitast-any-vistimsr including fer-example-Jane-Dee44-r abeut-their-views-en4he-nen-preseeutiem 26. On about December 6, 2007, Jeffrey H. Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit neting-the ttemeyie EpsteM-Ple-letter-stated+ Fiftally;-let-tne-address-yeur-objeetions-te-the-draft-Wetim-Netifieatien-6etier: 31-eu-wfite-that-yeu-den4-widerstand-the-basis-fer--the-Offieers-betief--that-it-is appremiate-te-netify-the-vietimsrFursuent-te-theslustiee-fer-A11-Ast-ef-2004 fanother-name-frem-the- Fivae-vietims-ffe-entitled-te -right-te reasonabler aeenrater and-timely-netiee-of-any-publie-mtuft-preeeeding, invelving-the-efimeLand-the-tright-not-te-be-exeludetl-frem-any-sueli-publie-eourt pmeeeding,--L--1-8-1.17,344-3-77-1-(02)-86-(3),Seetion-37-74-alse-eemmands that empleyees-af-the-DepaFtment-ef-Jestiee engaged-in-the-deteetieni investigatienr er--preseentien-ef-erime-shall-mke-their-best-effects-te-see-Mat erime-vietims-Ofe-netified-afr anel-aeeerdedr the-Fights-deseribed-in-subeetien-(*)? 18 U.S.C. § 3771(o)(1). . . . Qur-Nenaeseention-Agreement-resolves-the-federal-investigatien-by-allewing MirEpstein-te-plead4e-a-state-effenserThe-viefints-ide reugh-thefetieral invesiigatien-shefeld-be-apprepplavely-infermetir and-eur-Nen-Preseeutien Agreement-dees--mst-require-the-417SrAttemeyls-Offiee-te-ferege-its-legal ebligatieny IrlArroMerneyls-Gerrespandenee-m-1-94-92-(emphasis-added)7 EFTA00191274 27. Despite-this-reeegnitien-ef--iis-ebligolion-te-keep-vietin apprepriately-infemedabout-the / -Offiee-did-net-fellew-threugtrand-i.nfortn-the nen-pfeseeetien-egFeementr the-U7SrAneFney12 irieties-ef-the-nen-preseetnien-agreement,To4he-oentfafyr asAiseussed-belewr it-eentineed-to tell-the*ietitne-that-the-ease-was-aunder-investigationMmilwar-do-Deoloratiewat-s-4-and41-1-2, 28. On December 13, 2007, A. Marie Villafafia sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein„ a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit _.rebutting-ehafges-that had-apporently-been-mde-agoinst-her-by-the-Epstein-defenser-The-letter-stated-thet-a-feder-ol indietment-against-Epsteinwas-pestponed-fer-mare-than-fwe-nienths-te-all yeu-and-Mf: Epsteinls-ether-attevneys-te-make-presentatiens-te-the-Offiee-te-eonvimee-the-Qtrtee-net-te preseeutell'--The-letter-alse-reeounted-that -You-and-l-spent-lieurs-negotioting-the-tems-[ef-the fieli-preseestien-agreenclentir ineleding-when-te-use=aLmemus=the=and-etheriffrinetieerWhen you-and-i-eould-net-reoeh-agreenientr yeu-repeotedirwent-ever-my-Ileadr invelving-Messr* beefier MeneheIr Siontanr and-Aeoste-i.n-the-negetiatiens-at-vocieus-timeo." U.S. Attorney's Gerrespendenee-at-2697 20,The-Deeember—Par 2007,-letier—alse-mveols-that-the-Jostiee-Deportment-stepped-coaking vietim-netifieations-beeause-ef-ebjeetiens-frem-Epsteinis-eFiminal-elefense-eeunseli-2-Three vietims-Viere-netifted-oheftly-after-the-signing-ef--the-Nen-Proseeutionagreement-ef-the-generet teFnis-ef--the-Agreetnefttr--Yote-mieed-objeetiens-ie-ony-vietim-nofifieotiom-ond-no-foNhor nefifiealieeis-were-dene t4temeyls-Gerrespendenee-M-2-70-(eniphasis-added* 30. Following the signing of the Agreement and the modifications thereto, Epstein's performance was delayed while he sought higher. level review within the Department of Justice. See U.S. Attorney's Correspondence passim. EFTA00191275 31. On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received letters from the FBI advising them that "[tJhis case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request you'd continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." See Doc. #14 (attachments 3 and 4 to declaration of A. Marie Villafafla) (emphasis added). The-statement-in the-netifteatien-leuer-wes-falserihe-eese-was-net-ettrrentlyunder-investigatien -the eentrapyr the-ease-had-been-reselved-hy-the-nen-preseeutien-agreement-entered-inte-hy-Epstein and-the-U7SrAttemmis-offiee-diseuesed-previeuslyMereevefr the-FBI-eid-net-netify-Jane-Dee 44-Of4ane-Dee42-thet-a-plea-agreement-Iffid-befm-reaeheil-previeuslyr and-thm-part-ef-the agreement-was-a-nen-preseemien-areement-with-the-U:Srismerney12 / -Ofriee-fer—the-Seuthem Diewiet-ef-Fleficiar-Edwards-Deelaratien-at-4147 32. Iii-early-2008r Jane-Dee4-1-anclane-Doe402-eame-te-believe-that-efiminalpreseeutiewef Epstein woo extremely important. They also desired to be oonsulted by the FR! and/or other representatives-ef-the-fedmal-gevemment-aheut-the-preseeutien-ec-BpsteinrIn-light-ef-the-lettem that they had received around January 10, they believed that a criminal investigation of-Epstein was on going and that they would be contacted before the federal government reached any final mseimien-ef-that-investigatienrEdwards-Deelaratien-at--11-147 33. On about February 25, 2008, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Leflcowitz„ a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit _.Bpsteinls—eriminal—defense eeunselr explaining that the Justice Department's Child Exploitation Obscenity Seotion (CEOS) had-agreeil-te-review-Bpstein12 / -ehjeetiens-te-the--prepese4-plea-agFeement-that-hed-heen-reaehed with-theWatomeyls-Offiee-fer-the-Seuthem-Diemiet-ef--FlefidarThe-letter-indiested-thah sheuld-GEOS-rejeet-Bpsteiels-objeetiens-te-the‘-agreementr thenMErEpsiein-shall-have-ene week-te-abkle-by-the-teens-and-eenditiens-ef-the-Septembef-24r 200;agFeement-as-amended-by EFTA00191276 lener-freni-Uniteil-Statesatterftey-osteesta-te-Jarheilfltecneys-Geffespentienee-at 290 91. 34. In about April 2008, Jane Doe #1 contacted the FBI because Epstein's counsel was attempting to take her deposition and private investigators were harassing her. Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafana secured pro bono counsel to represent Jane Doe #1. Pro bono counsel was able to assist Jane Doe #1 in avoiding the improper deposition. AUSA Villafaila secured pro bono counsel by contacting Meg Garvin, Esq. of the the National Crime Victims' Law Center in Portland, Oregon, which is based in the Lewis & Clark College of Law. During the call, Ms. Garvin was not advised that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached. 35. On May 30, 2008, another of Mr. Edwards's clients who was recognized as an a potential victim of Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that "fifhis case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." The statement in-the-netifieetien-letter-wee-falser-The-ease-was-net-eurrentlyentler-investigatien te eentretyr-the-ease-hati-been-reselved-by-theiten-preseentien-egreernent-enteced4nte-by-Epstein 36. In mid-June 2008, Mr. Edwards contacted AUSA Villafaha to inform her that he represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. Mr. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein, hoping to secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein. AUSA Villafruia and Mr. Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed. At the end of the call, AUSA Villafaula asked Mr. Edwards to send any information that he wanted considered by the U.S. Attorney's Office in determining whether to file federal charges. Because of the confidentiality provision that existed in the plea EFTA00191277 agreememr MirEdwards—was—net—infeemed—that--peevieuslyr in—September-2007r the—LITS, Attemeyls-Offiee-liad-reaehed-on-ageeemen4-net-te-file-federal-ehorgesMfr-Edworels-wes-olse not-infermeel-that-reselution-ef-The-oriminal-rnaner--was-i.mminentrEdworels-Deektratien-alH-3, 37. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA Villafafia received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. AUSA Villafafia and the Palm Beach Police Department attempted to provide notification to victims in the short time that Epstein's counsel had provided. Attorney Edwards was called to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. ALISA-Villefafio-did net-tellattecney-Edwaeds-that-the-guilty-pleas-in-state-eeert-would-bring-on-end-to-the-pessibility of-federal-preseoutien-pustrant-te-the-pleo-agfeement,Edwards-Deolamtiem-at—II—Ph AUSA Villafafia strongly encouraged Attorney Edwards and his client to attend and address the Court at sentencing if they so desired. 38. On June 30, 2008, AUSA Villafafla sent an e-mail to Jack Goldberger, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit _.that-statedi-ti-Jaek-The FRI-Iles-reeeived--seveml-ettlis-regardiag-theMen-Preseeutien—isrgreemenh--I—de—rlet—knew whethee-the-title-ef-ttte-deooment-was-diselesed-when4he-Agreemem-was-filed-under-sealr but 39. On July 3, 2008, Mr. Edwards sent to AUSA Villafafia a letter. See Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., at 15 (attachment 2). In the letter, Mr. Edwards indicated his client's desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, he wrote on behalf of his clients: "We urge the Attorney General and our United States Attorney to consider the fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes EFTA00191278 Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our children from this very dangerous sexual predator." When Mr. Edwards wrote this letter, he was still unaware that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached with Epsteini.1 - a-feet-that eentinued-te-be-eeeeealed-fFein-hico-(and-the-vietims)-by-the ttemeyls-Offieer Mr. Edwards first saw a reference to the NPA on or after July 9, 2008, when the Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe's emergency petition. That-pleading-was-the-first-publie mention-ef-the-neit-preseeution-agreement-and-the-fifst-diselesere-to-MirE4wards-(ead-thus-te Jone-Dee-#4-and--Jene-Dee-#2.)-of-the-possible-existeiwe-of-a-nen-proseeutien-agreement, Edwards Declaration at ¶ 15. 40. On July 9, 2008, AUSA Villafafta sent a victim notification to Jane Doe #1 via her attorney, Bradley Edwards. Edwards Declaration, Exhibit "H." That notification contains a written explanation of some of the terms of the agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office. A MI copy of the terms was not provided. A notification was not provided to Jane Doe #2 because the agreement limited Epstein's liability to victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. As a result, Jane Doe #2 never received a notification a letter about the agreement. The-rietifieation4id-net-nientieft-tlie-tieti-preseetttieft . Edwards Declaration at ¶ 16. 41. On July 9, 2008, AUSA Villafafta filed a sworn declaration with the Court in connection with the case (doc. #14). The declaration purported to recount limit parts of the non-prosecution agreement and stated that "these provisions were discussed" with several victims, including Jane Doe #1. Id. at 4. 42. On July 11, 2008, the Court held a hearing on Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Rights. During the hearing, the Government conceded that Jane Doe EFTA00191279 #1 and Jane Doe #2 were "victims" within the meaning of the Crime Victim's Rights Act. Tr. at 14-15. 43. aufhig-theally,-14Alearingr the-Getin-atid-the-pafties-disetissed-the4eet-that-theiaetitien ohould not be treated as an "emergency" petition because there was not any particular rush to Feting-en-kr=Frrat4445,The-GetiFt-further4iseassed-a-need-te4liwfel-a-eemplete-reeer-dr and this-is-geing-te-be-an-issue-thalls geing4e-ge-teAe-Bleventh-Girouitr (sbiti-nla)“be-better-to have-a-eemplete-reeerd-as4e-i,4hat-yeef-pesitien-is-and-the-governmentis-is-ftS4o-kiohat-aetions 4freere4akenl —Anci - l - denItanes .r if-l-have-metigh4nrefmatienr base4-ena4s,V41.Anals-a.ffitlevit er-l-need-additienel-infetmationr—And-beeatise-it-is-fiet-en-emefgeneyr 1-denit-have-teAe somethingieieklyr we-ean-play-iFbfyi-ear-and-niake4his-inte-a-mere-eemplete-reeer44or-the esuct-of-appeats frat4S46,Gewisel4er-Jane-Dee414-and-Jane-Dee4a-e*ftlainedtlir., YOttf-Hener-is-eefreet4n-stating4h€4444s-net-en-emergeney“and44-deestilt-ti.ee4-te-liappen4e4ay7 Andr 1-svill-eenfee-witli-the-goverftment-en-this-an€14f-evi4enee-needs4e4e4rakenr it-Feen)4e taken-at-a4ater-daterit-deesnit-seem-like4hefea,411-be-any-preiudiee-te-anyt-petrt,,-Efrem4elayF Trre446,The4teafing-eenetude&Se-P1-let-beth-ef-yea-eeefeeabeet-whether-there-is-aiteed fer-aftyc-additietial-eviflenee-te-be-preseniedr-Let-me4nes.,Lene-way-of-the-etherrWthere4s7well4 sehedule-a-heaFingrif4her-e-isnit-and-)cetrwant-to-submit-seme-additienal-stipu4ated4nfemetienT de4hatr and-then411-14ake-etwe-e.f4his-in-dee-eeurse rrat42,The-C-eaft4heii-adjeufnedr taking the->oietims=petitieniindeeedvisement, 44. The-lch8r764terneyts-effiee-ancl-the-lietime4hen-attempted4e-reaeh-a-stipulated-set-of-faets anderlying4he-easerThe-W787,4.tterneyls-Offtee-sef,a-preposed-set-of-feetss-arid4he-..iietims-sent a-eeuffter-prepesal,Rather--than-respond-te-the-vietims=eetinter-prepesalr hewevecr the-U4, Attemeyls-Office-suddenly-reversed-eetirser(Doer#4V-at4),-On4aly49r 200-8r it-fi4ed-a41etiee EFTA00191280 te-Geuct-Regardint-Absenee-ecNee€14ef-Evidentiafy-Heaping-(deer#1-7)rThe-Geventmem-teek the-position-their beee.use-ne-fetml-eriniinal-eharges-liad-been-fi4ed-in4he4euthem-Distfiet-ef Fierider fte-additienal-evidenee-..,oes-requifed4e4eeide-the-petitien-befere4heCOMIT 45. On—i4ugust-174008r Jane-Dee-#4-and4ane-Dee42-filed-(deer-X1-9)-a-respense4e-the Gevernmentis-aNetieeA—FrF411e-respenser Jane-Dee-iM-and4ane-Dee-ifa-gave-a-prepese4 statement-ef-fasts-suFFeundin the-easerThe-prepese4-statement-ef-feet-was-based-en-the information available to the victims at that time. The proposed statement of facts highlighted the feet-that-the-Geverament-had-signed—a—nen-pfeseetnien—agreement—eentakting—ati—ewess eefffi4entiality-pfeidsienr whieh-prevemed-the-Gevemnien44reni-diselesing-the-agfeement-te theni-itn4-eilief-vietiesr4d74it4,The-respense-ake-ne4ed4hat4he-GOtin-had4aken-the-vi.e4m.s! peti4ietruncier-edstisememrThe-respense4unher-neted4hat-the-Gevemment-had-ftet-attempted4e werk-..,#itli-the--,#ietims4e-draft-a411-set-efAindisputed4aels-EtR4-kad4eNsed4he-Jo.ietimsLefferts4e ebtaitl-eleesments-relevant-te-the-easeridrat-9r-Mt Nietims-respense4Ise-requested4hat-the GOUft-direet-the-Geverament-te-eeefef-with4he-Jiietims-regareling-the-Effidisputed4ae4s-ef-the easer ftreduee-the-nefl-preseeutief,i-agfeement-at-issue4n-the-easer and-preduee-an4B1-Repe4-e.f intewiew-,.vitli-Jane-Dee4f1 The,-fesponse-alse-requested-tha4-the-Getlft-en4eFiudgment-fer-the %tietimeLfindintit-yielatiefref-Fights-aml-sehedule-ct-hear4rigethe-appfepfiate-remedyrle/rat-14, 46. Cht-Augum-147-20087the-GOON-hel4-a4eaFing-en4he-ease,—Dering-that-heafiegr the-U$7 Atteme.sas-Offiee-eeneeded=twe-de4eel4eusd-b),-the-eenfi4eRtiatityprevisiefEsuell-thitt-we eeukl-net-velestefilrdiselese-this-nell-preseeutieft-agreement->A4itheut-eetwt-erder-eempel4ing-us te4e-se rrat-87-Tlie-effiee4.6ent-eil-te4urther-eeneede4hat-it-eeeklilet-justiPfrdeprivin.wthe vietievref-the-eppeftunity4e-see4he-agreemen4,4drat-14,The-heafiffgeeneleded-witheut-any sehedule-Of4eadlines-hOintpat4n-plaee, EFTA00191281 47. Ori-Geteber-9r 2008r Bfadley-J,Edwarilsr seunsel-ferane-Dee-#-1-and-Jane-Dee-#2r sent- a letter-to-eoensel-for-the- terneyzs-Offiee-iii--this-ease-aeivising-that-twe-pessibly-false statements-hael-been-made-te-thfrcetift2m-the-July-9th-swom-deeleration-of-ALISA-V4llefarlarigee Oetr9r a048r Letter from Bradley J. Edwards to Marie Villafafia at 1, Edwards Declaration, Atetelvinent -ir-str whi4e—MsrWilefarla—liael—desevibetha—tenn—as-being-part-ef-the-plea agreeinesvith-Epsteiur that-teen-later-beeeme-defauetr itt-least-in-the-view-ef-Epsteie attemeys-Eantl-apparently-seeedesi-te-by-the-thSrAttomeyzs-Offiee)r-Seeendr Msrliitlafefia-had sicid-that-21four-viet-ims-finetuding-kine-Doe-#4-bwere-eenteeted-entl-Mese-previsiens-were diseussede-it-wes•net-olear-what-provisiens-ktad-in-feet-been4iseussed7 48. OrrDeeember-2-2r 200frAtASA-Mar-ieNillafana-frlecl-a-supplementel-affidavi eeireetine the-stetement-inede-in-her-Juty-87-20083-deelerefien-about-ther-terms-of-the-plea-agreement-(dee: tt weer iii-the-Yiew-Epstein=legal-GettftSelr ile-lenger-operativer—The-supplementel—affidavih however, did not clarify what terms of the agreement had been discussed. 49. On April 9, 2009, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 sent to the Court in this case (via the PACER system) a notice of a change of law firm affiliation. Doc. #37. 50. hi—approximately—May-2009r eounsekfer—Jene—Dee44—and—Jane—Dee—#2—propeundefl diseoveFy—request-s—in—bech—state—ttafi—fedecal—eivikeases—against—Epsteier seeking—to—obtain eorrespendenee-hetween-Epstein-and-pfeseeutefs-regar4ing-his-piea-agreemem—infoFmatien-that the-6178-.-Attemey2s-Offiee-was-unwillingte-previfle-te-Jene-Dee4-1-and-Jane-Doe-#2,Espstein Fefused-te-preduee-that-infeimatieer anfl-extended-kigation-to-obtain-the-materials-followed, Edwarels-DeelaFation-at4I407 EFTA00191282 51. Beeause-ePthirs-extendekl-iitigetionr Jane-Dee4M-end4ene-Dee42-did-net-have-fteeess-te impeEtem-seFFespendenee-demens4ca4ing-aaAelatien-ef-thelerights-untilame40;404-0r-On-that dayr eeensel-fer-Bpsteifrsent-te-Bredle,“JrEctwardsr Es egal-eaunsel-fer4ene-Dee-#4-an44ene Dee-Of2r appreximateb,--3-58,pagesref-e-ifieil-eerrespendenee-between4is4egal-eennsel-and-the U78,6.44emey12 / -Offiee4eethe4euthern-Distfiet-ef-Fleride-regarding-the-plea4greement-that-hed beeti-negetiated-betweeel-themr—See-Edwards-Deetaratienr Ailaehment-. ese-e-mitils diseleseel-fer-the-first-time-4he-extreme-ttnd-uftusual-steps-that-lied4een-taken-by-the-Y787 Attemey12 / -Qffree40-aveid-preseeu“.ng-gpsteiwantl-te-aveid-having-the-y.ietims-in4he-ease-teani abeut—the—mfl--ppeseeutien—agreement—thig—had—been—reaelied—between—Eps4ein—and—the Gevernmentrhitigatiffil-eentinues-te-this-clay4e-ebtain-the-seFFespendenee-regarding-the-state preseeutieli—aftel—tegareling—svhat--Fi3steinIs—attemeys-sekl—in—the—eerrespendenee—,.,iith—the preseeutepsrEdwfwels-DeeleFeRien.4-22 52. In-mid4u1y40-14r Jane-Dee-it-l-and-Jane-Dee-002-settled-theifrek44-lawsui4s-against-.Mfr Epstein,?.1etiee-ef4his-feet-wastrempt4),-pres4ded4e4he-GeuctrEdwards-DeeleFatien-at-)eet7 53. On-Septembef-8r 20-1-0r the Court entered an order stating that "[a]n examination of the deeket-feyeals-that-ne-aetivity4uts4aken-pleee4wthis-ease-sinee-Appil-ef-2009,In-light-ef-the underlying-settlements-between4he-vieti.ms-and4frEpsteinr it-is-hereby-ordered-end-adjudged thei-this-ease-is-elesed eerita& 54. Prempt*eti-the-heels-ef-this-administrative-efElefr eft-Septembef-13r 20-1-Or Jane-Dee41-and hne-Dee42-ft4ed-a-netiee-that4hey intentl-te-rnake-subsequent-filing-in4ke-ease-shectlyrThey aeoerdingl.,4-request-administrative-reepening-ef4he-ease-andr ifihe-Geart-deems4t-ath4sakkler a sehedutingeettferenee-3.vitli-the-lokSrlarttemey4-Affiee4egarding-the-ease eer#39-et-1 They fucther-ediriseekthe-CAUft-that-theifrsettlements-with4effrehBpstein4fEne-svey-e4Beted theif EFTA00191283 detemina —the-648:-Mterney-ts-Offtee-fef-the-Seuthern-Distriet-ef-Plemila—ki-at-2—The-pleadtitg-fuft n-ex-pedh ne-Dee p-an-expedited-sehedide-fer pfeeeeding-en-the-ease --The-pleading-fufther-advised-that-the-reason-the-vietims had not filed—fer—sufficaary—j*dgment—in—the—ease—was—that—they—had—been—attemptiftg to secure eerrespendenee-between-the-I terneyls-Affiee-antl-Espstein-to-oeFFebeFate-theif-argument ts -14,tey-Freted-that-they-Itad-jast-sesured-ilalf-ef-that eeFFespenilenee-two-nienths-earlier. Id. at 2. The vietir A-deems-it advisabler that-a-seheeltiliftg-c-enfeFenee-he-set-fer-this-ease 55. At-all-tinles-nutterial-to-th. federal government to inlrm-Jane Doe Ill and Jane Doe fl2 of the details of the proposed non prosecution agreement with Epstein, including in partioular the fact that the agreement barred any-federal-eriminal-pnaseention=Edwards-Deelafation at 11 26. SO AGREED AND STIPULATED TO, THIS DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: DEXTER LEE ASSISTANT U.S. ATI'ORNEY EFTA00191284  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 and #2 I UNITED STATES STIPULATION The parties to this action, that is, Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, and the United States of America, by and through their undersigned counsel, do hereby stipulate and agree that the following facts are true and correct and that no further evidentiary hearing is required with respect to the pending "Victim's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim Right Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. 1. In 2006, at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") opened an investigation into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and his personal assistants had used facilities of interstate commerce to induce young girls between the ages of thirteen and seventeen to engage in prostitution, amongst other offenses. The case was presented to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which accepted the case for investigation. 2. At the time that the investigation was opened, the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office had presented evidence to a state grand jury, which had returned an EFTA00191285 indictment charging solicitation of prostitution. That charge made no reference to the ages of the minor victims and, upon conviction, did not require sex offender registration. 3. Jane Doe #1 is a woman with initials C.W., and Jane Doe #2 is a woman with initials T.M. Both were victims of Epstein's while they were minors beginning when they were fifteen years old. Both Jane Does were identified through the Palm Beach Police Department's investigation of Epstein. 4. Attached as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the Declaration of A. Marie Villafana are true and correct copies of victim notification letters sent to Jane Does 1 and 2 from the United States Attorney's Office and the FBI. 5. Throughout the investigation, the FBI agents and the Assistant U.S. Attorney had several meetings with Jane Doe #1. During those meetings, Jane Doe #1 never expressed a desire to be consulted prior to the resolution of the investigation. Jane Doe #2 was represented by counsel and, accordingly, all contact was made through that attorney. That attorney never expressed that Jane Doe #2 wanted to be consulted prior to the resolution of the investigation. 6. In September 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office reached an agreement whereby the United States would defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, so long as certain basic preconditions were met, those included a conviction on a state sex offense that reflected that the victims were minors at the time the crimes occurred and that would require sex offender registration. Another key objective for the United States Attorney's Office was to preserve a federal remedy for "2" EFTA00191286 the young girls whom Epstein had sexually exploited. The Agreement contained an express confidentiality provision. The Agreement was subsequently modified in October and December 2007. 7. Although individual victims were not consulted regarding the agreement, several had expressed concerns regarding the exposure of their identities at trial and they desired a prompt resolution of the matter. At the time the agreement and the modifications were signed in September, October, and December 2007, Jane Doe #2 was openly hostile to the prosecution of Epstein. 8. In October 2007, shortly after the initial agreement was signed, Jane Doe # I was contacted to be advised regarding the resolution of the investigation. On October 2007, Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards met in person with Jane Doe #1. The Special Agents explained that the investigation had been resolved, that Epstein would plead guilty to two state offenses, he would be required to register as a sex offender for life, and he had made certain concessions related to the payment of damages to the victims, including Jane Doe #1. Jane Doe #1 also was advised that Epstein would b