EFTA00078773.pdf

S.J. QUINNEY PAUL G. CASSELL Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law COLLEGE OF LAW and University Distinguished Professor of Law Si. Quinney College of Law University of Utah tli TI IC UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 383 South University Street February 7, 2019 Director and Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 3266 Washington, DC 20530-0001 Re: OPR Investigation into the Non-Prosecution of leffrey Epstein Dear Directo I write to you in connection with the recent announcement that your Office of Professional Responsibility, at the request of Senator Sasse, has opened an investigation into allegations that Department attorneys may have committed professional misconduct in connection with their decision not to federally prosecute Jeffrey Epstein for sex crimes against dozens of girls. I am not certain whether you are aware that, on December 10, 2010, I wrote a letter to the then- U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, requesting an investigation into these very same issues. See attachment 1. My letter was referred to OPR, who then wrote back to me that they would not investigate the matter because it was under litigation. See attachment 2. In light of the fact that you are now apparently willing to investigate these issues, I respectfully request that you investigate the allegations I made in my 2010 letter. I would also request that and I — who have been representing several of Epstein's sexual assault victims for more than a decade in an effort to obtain information on these issues — have an opportunity to discuss the issues with you. Our clients — including Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, and Jane Doe 4 — would also request that they be kept informed about all information the OPR uncovers. Thanks in advance for considering these requests, which I make in my own personal capacity. Sincerely, cc: Senator Ben Sasse EFTA00078773  ATTACHMENT 1 Letter fro to U.S. Attorney Ferrer (Dec. 10, 2010) EFTA00078774  5,..1. QUINNEY PAUL G. CASSELL lU COLLEGE OF LAW ,wi THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH December 10, 2010 Ronald N. Boyce Presidenti Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E.41h 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 his West Palm Beach mansion. The FBI soon developed compelling evidence that Epstein had in fact committed numerous federal sex offenses with more than 30 minor girls. And yet, your office ultimately entered into a plea arrangement which allowed Epstein escape with a non- prosecution agreement that ensured he would have no federal criminal liability and would spend no more than 18 months in state jail. For sexual offenses of this magnitude — in a case with more than 30 witnesses providing interlocking testimony, all made automatically admissible by virtue of Fed. R. Evid. 414 — this is an extraordinary outcome. Why did your office enter into this highly unusual non-prosecution arrangement with Epstein? Suspicion begins with the point that Epstein is a politically-connected billionaire. But that wouldn't be troubling without considerable other evidence that something went terribly wrong with the prosecution for other, improper reasons. Consider the following highly unusual facts: First, it appears that Epstein was tipped off before the execution of a search warrant at his home. We know that lead state police officers -- Detective and Police Chief -- complained that the house was "sanitized" by the time they arrived to serve a search warrant for child pornography. This sanitation was evident b the various computer wires hanging with no computers attached. Housekeepe later testified in a civil werw.law.utab.edu • Main Office (801) 581-6833 • Facsimile (801) 581-6897 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0730 EFTA00078775  nd another man (unknown) were deposition that Epstein's assistant, uters from Epstein's home shortly instructed to remove, and did in fact remove, multiple comp could well have been a tip off is before the search warrant was served. The fact that there apparently suspected by federal authorities. in your office joined Second, there is evidence that one of the senior prosecutors made limiting Epstein's criminal liability Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were During the federal investigation of — and im ro erl re resented people close to Epstein. stand Epstein was a senior Assistant U.S. Attorney in your office. As we under handling the case and thus was well things, he was a direct supervisor of the line prosecutor tiations. We further believe that he aware of details of the Epstein investigation and plea nego in and Epstein's co-conspirators, was consulted on issues related to the prosecution of Epste yees and pilots should be including specifically issues related to whether Epstein emplo e. We further believe that he prosecuted for their involvement in Epstein's sexual offens ons about the course of the personally and substantially participated in making such decisi criminal investigation. d by your office, Within months after the non-prosecution agreement was signe as a white collar criminal defense left your office and immediately went into private practice onl in the same building (and on same attorney. His office coincidentally happened to be not but it was actually located floor) as Epstein's lead criminal defense counsel, Epstein-owned and -run company where right next door to the Florida Science Foundation -- an Epstein spent his "work release." undertook the representation While working in this office adjacent to Epstein's, cases filed against Epstein by the of numerous Epstein employees and pilots during the civil exact same evidence being r victims — cases that involved the exact same crimes and fically, he represented the U.S. Attorney's office when he was employed there. Speci (Epstein's number one co-conspir uall nam d as such in the NPA), his housekee er his pilo nd Robert Roxburgh. (-and Roxburgh were not deposed but the others these individuals was paid for, directly were.) Our understanding is that his representation of or indirectly, by Epstein. investigator had was well aware of what evidence your office and federal who were his victims. As a consequence, he collected against Epstein and about the minor girls using. He also knew what each of those knew what evidence the attorneys for the victims were tigators during the criminal witnesses had said, if anything, to federal and state inves investigation. federal regulations governing such later We have been unable to place our fingers on the s appear to be in direct contravention representation. We do know, however, that such action leave government employment. For of the Florida ethical rules regarding attorneys who 2 EFTA00078776  lawyer shall not represent a private example, Florida R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.11(a) provides "[a] ipated personally and substantially client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer partic nment agency consents after as a public officer or employee unless the appropriate gover provides that "[a] lawyer having consultation." Similarly, Florida R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.11(b) nment information about a person information that the lawyer knows is confidential gover yee may not represent a private client acquired when the lawyer was a public officer or emplo in which the information could be used whose interests are adverse to that person in a matter rules appear to have been violated. to the material disadvantage of that person." Both these that one of your prosecutors was But entirely apart from the details of ethical rules, the fact criminal liability for Epstein and his involved in making important decisions about the scope of icantly limited — representing numerous associates and then — after criminal liability was signif very least, there is the strong people at Epstein's behalf raises serious questions. At the reap his appearance that'll'', may have attempted to curry favor with Epstein and then , there may have been advance reward through favorable employment. At the very worst discussions — we simply don't know at this point. s in the case correspondence Third, Epstein appears to have deliberately kept from victim shed light on improper influences. with your office and the Justice Department that might have senting one of Epstein's victims Along with other capable attorneys, I was involved in repre cting that Epstein may have I ll) who filed a federal civil case against Epstein. Suspe d discovery requests on Epstein for all improperly influenced your office, we immediately serve negotiations. Eleven months of hard the correspondence with your office regarding the plea argument against production. litigation ensued, in which Epstein made every conceivable Epstein produced the correspondence to Finally, late in June of this year, his appeals exhausted, the correspondence so that he us. However, in violation of the court order, he redacted — not his emails and statements to provided only emails and other statements from your office court order to produce all your office. More significantly, even though he was under , Epstein secretly withheld correspondence between his attorneys and your office attorneys — namely Ken Starr and Lilly Ann correspondence by several of his mostill-powered Sanchez. Epstein settled the case wit within days after this limited production, and we did discussions between your office and not realize the absence of what must have been critical allow us to see that information raises Starr and Snachez (among others). Epstein's refusal to al pressures being brought to bear the suspicion in our minds that there must have been unusu led had Epstein complied with his during the plea discussions that would have been revea production obligations. level of secrecy between your Fourth, there appears to have been an unprecedented g this case. The FBI was responsible, along office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation durin case against Epstein. They appear to have with state and local police agencies, for building the yet, when your office signed the non- developed an overwhelming criminal against him. And that the FBI was consulted about this prosecution agreement with him, it is not clear to us not informed of this decision until, decision. Indeed, we have suspicions that the FBI was perhaps, months later. 3 EFTA00078777  Supporting this suspicion is our on-going litigation regarding the treatment of the victims in this case. As you know from our draft pleadings that we have discussed with your office, we believe there is compelling evidence that the victims and their attorneys were deceived about the existence of a non-prosecution agreement for months in order to avoid what certainly would have been a firestorm of controversy about such lenient treatment of a repeat sex offender. Our impression from the evidence we have been able to obtain so far is that the FBI was similarly kept in the dark — not consulted about or even told about the NPA. While a certain amount of tension has always existed between federal prosecuting and investigating agencies, not even informing the FBI about the Epstein NPA seems highly unusual. All of these strange facts -- as well as the facts that we are alleging in our crime victims' litigation — lead us to think that there was something rotten with the way this case was handled. Epstein could have faced years and years in prison for numerous federal sex offenses. And yet he managed to contrive to walk away with no federal time at all (and only minimal state time). We respectfully ask you to investigate through appropriate and independent channels the handling of the Epstein (non)prosecution. Thank you in advance for considering this request. I would be happy to provide any other additional information that would be useful to you. 4 EFTA00078778  ATTACHMENT 2 Letter from U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility to Professor Paul Cassell (May 6, 2011) EFTA00078779 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 82-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/16/2011 Page 1 of 1 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility 950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Room 3266 Washington, D.C. 20530 MAY -62011 Professor Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law Dear Professor Cassell: Your letter dated December 10, 2010 to United States Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer was forwarded to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). OPR has completed an inquiry into your allegation of professional misconduct by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) in the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. Specifically, you question whether "improper influences" resulted in the USAO's decision to enter into a non- prosecution agreement with Mr. Epstein. Most, if not all, of the allegations set forth in your letter are currently being litigated on behalf of victims under the Crime Victim's Rights Act in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla.). OPR has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct involving Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys or law enforcement personnel that relate to the exercise of an attorney's authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice. It is, however, the policy of this Office to refrain from investigating issues or allegations that were, are being, or could have been addressed in the course of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of misconduct by a DOJ attorney or law enforcement personnel or there are present other extraordinary circumstances. Based on our review of your correspondence, and the pleadings filed in the Doe case, we have determined that your allegations fall into this category. No court has made a finding of misconduct and there are no extraordinary circumstances. We regret that we can be of no further assistance to you. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Counsel EFTA00078780