EFTA00078993.pdf

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 42 RT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU RID A SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLO nson Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Joh JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES LATIONS OF MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S HEA RING ON ACT AND REQUEST FOR A THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS APPROPRIATE REMEDIES ms"), by and #2 (also referred to as "the victi COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe r e for a finding from this Court that the victims' rights unde through undersigned counsel, to mov ted by the U.S. , 18 U.S.C. § 3771, have been viola the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) tions. ring on the appropriate remedies for these viola Attorney's Office, and to request a hea have failed to of facts to the Government, which they The victims have proffered a series rney's Office has e facts,' it is clear that the U.S. Atto contest. Proceeding on the basis of thes er with ected CVR A rights, including their right to conf repeatedly violated the victims' prot secution agreement the and specifically about a non-pro prosecutors generally about the case See 18 U.S.C. as well as their right to fair treatment. Office signed with the defendant, 3771(a)(5) & (8). . Attorney's ple, that in September 2007, the U.S It is now beyond dispute, for exam secution agreement with Jeffr ey Epstein that barred his Office formally signed a non-pro by the ly filing a motion to have their facts accepted The victims are contemporaneous Court. EFTA00078993 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 42 committed against the victims (as well as prosecution for numerous federal sex offenses he the victims about this non-prosecution against many other minor girls). Rather than confer with y Epstein agreed to a "confidentiality" agreement, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffre to anyone — including the victims. For the next provision in the agreement barring its disclosure Attorney's Office assiduously concealed from nine months, as Epstein was well aware, the U.S. cution agreement. Indeed, the Office went so the victims the existence of this signed non-prose ation letter to the victims informing them far as to send (in January 2008) a false victim notific the U.S. Attorney's Office had already that the "case is currently under investigation." In fact, -prosecution agreement. Again on May resolved the case three months earlier by signing the non r victim notification letter to a recognized 30, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent yet anothe investigation" and that it "can be a lengthy victim informing her that the "case is currently under while we conduct a thorough investigation." process and we request your continued patience Epstein's state guilty plea that was part of the Then in June 2008, on the eve of consummating Office asked legal counsel for the victims to non-prosecution agreement, the U.S. Attorney's why federal charges should be filed — not send a letter expressing the victims' views on was a pointless exercise because the non- disclosing to the victims' legal counsel that this nine months earlier. prosecution agreement had already been signed some clear violations of Jane Doe #1 and These actions and many more like them constitute Rights Act, including the right to confer with Jane Doe #2's rights under the Crime Victims only argument that the U.S. Attorney's Office prosecutors and the right to fair treament. The e no indictment was formally filed in this case. advances is that the CVRA does not apply becaus CVRA's plain language, see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § But this position is inconsistent with both the 2 EFTA00078994 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 42 the "detection" and "investigation" of 3771(c)(1) (Justice Department agencies involved in law, see, e.g., In re Dean, 527 F.3d federal crimes covered by CVRA), and with persuasive case d before pre-indictment plea reached). 391, 394 (51h Cir. 2008) (victims should have been notifie of its obligations to notify the Moreover, the U.S. Attorney's Office itself was fully aware eviden ce make perfectly clear. The victims in this case, as e-mails from the Office and other non-prosecution agreement from the only reason that the Office concealed the existence of the but rather to avoid a firestorm of public victims was not to comply with some legal restriction, plea deal with a politically-connected controversy that would have erupted if the sweetheart billionaire had been revealed. ey's Office — in coordination with The Court should accordingly find that the U.S. Attorn g schedule and hearing on the proper Jeffrey Epstein -- has violated the Act and set a briefin remedy for those violations. S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACT of undisputed material facts. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 offer the following statement s request an evidentiary hearing to prove If the Government disputes any of these facts, the victim each and every one of them:2 in (a billionaire with significant 1. Between about 2001 and 2007, defendant Jeffrey Epste minor girls at his mansion in West Palm political connections) sexually abused more than 30 2 The Court should accept all these facts as true for reasons the victims explain in their #2's Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted contemporaneously-filed Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe of The Facts. The Court should also direct Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any ses supporting these facts, for reasons the the Government to produce all evidence that it posses Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for victims explain in their contemporaneously-filed Jane Withhold Relevant Evidence. Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to 3 EFTA00078995 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 42 Doe #1 and Jane the girls he sexually abused were Jane Beach, Florida, and elsewhere. Among (but lewd, lasc ivious, and sexual acts on them, including Doe #2. Epstein performed repeated on of their sexual organs, using vibrators or sexual toys not limited to) masturbation, touching use Epstein used a , and digitally penetrating them. Beca them, coercing them into sexual acts engage in abuse wing ly traveled in interstate commerce to means of interstate commerce and kno s of federal law, the other victims), he committed violation of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (and E.W. v. Epstein, Case U.S.C. § 2422. See, e.g., Complaint, including repeated violations of 18 plaint, AB (15th Cir. Palm Beach County, Florida); Com No. 50 2008 CA 028058 XXXXMB Beach Count, CA 028051 XXXXMB AB (15th Cir. Palm L.M. v. Epstein, Case No 50 2008 Florida). ose of underage girl on his private jet for the purp 2. Jeffrey Epstein flew at least one girl to be sexually others. Epstein forced this underage forcing her to have sex with him and professional ding royalty, politicians, businessmen, and exploited by his adult male peers, inclu plaint, Jane Doe No. 102 v. Eps tein, No. 9:09-CV-80656- and personal acquaintances. Com KAM (S.D. Fla. May 1, 2009). Bureau of Beach Police Department, the Federal 3. In 2006, at the request of the Palm personal into alleg ations that Jeffrey Epstein and his Investigation opened an investigation between the ages of state commerce to induce young girls assistants had used facilities of inter was presented prostitut ion, among other offenses. The case thirteen and seventeen to engage in pted the ce for the Souther n District of Florida, which acce to the United States Attorney's Offi was also investigating ch County State Attorney's Office case for investigation. The Palm Bea 4 EFTA00078996 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 5 of 42 nce, Exhibit "A" to this filing (hereinafter the case. See generally U.S. Attorney's Corresponde by Bates page number stamp). cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced #1 and Jane Doe #2 were victims of 4. The FBI soon determined that both Jane Doe beginning when they were approximately sexual assaults by Epstein while they were minors of age respectively. Jane Doe #1, for fourteen years of age and approximately thirteen years (and the abuse of Jane Doe #2) to the example, provided detailed information about her abuse FBI on August 7, 2007. Exhibit "B." investigation established that Epstein 5. More generally, the FBI through diligent yees and underlings to repeatedly find operated a large criminal enterprise that used paid emplo rt as part of the enterprise with others, and bring minor girls to him. Epstein worked in conce obtain minor girls not only for his own including Ghislane Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel, to of others. The FBI determined that sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification l sex crimes against dozens of minor girls Epstein had committed dozens and dozens of federa to the U.S. Attorney's Office for criminal between 2001 and 2007. They presented information nce at 47-55. prosecution. See Exhibit "B"; U.S. Attorney's Corresponde to Jane Doe #1 a standard CVRA 6. On about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered the Justice Department would makes its victim notification letter. The notification promised that ing "[t]he reasonable right to confer with the "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe #1's rights, includ be reasonably heard at any public proceeding attorney for the United States in the case" and "to notification further explained that "fait this in the district court involving . . . plea . . . ." The ation meant that the FBI had identified Jane time, your case is under investigation." That notific ne protected by the CVRA. Jane Doe #1 Doe #1 as a victim of a federal offense and as someo 5 EFTA00078997 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 6 of 42 Justice Department would protect these relied on these representations and believed that the case. See Exhibit "C." rights and keep her informed about the progress of her ed a standard CVRA victim notification 7. On about August It, 2007, Jane Doe #2 receiv tment would makes its "best efforts" to letter. The notification promised that the Justice Depar right to confer with the attorney for the protect Jane Doe #2's rights, including "Nile reasonable at any public proceeding in the district United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard r explained that "[a]t this time, your case is court involving . . . plea .. . ." The notification furthe FBI had identified Jane Doe #2 as a victim under investigation." That notification meant that the CVRA. Jane Doe #2 relied on these of a federal offense and as someone protected by the would protect these rights and keep her representations and believed that the Justice Department informed about the progress of her case. See Exhibit "D." an Assistant U.S. Attorney had several 8. Early in the investigation, the FBI agents and ented by counsel that was paid for by the meetings with Jane Doe #1. Jane Doe #2 was repres made through that attorney. criminal target Epstein and, accordingly, all contact was took place between Jeffrey Epstein, 9. In and around September 2007, plea discussions al defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz), and represented by numerous attorneys (including lead crimin ct of Florida, represented by Assistant U.S. the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern Distri discussions generally began from the premise Attorney A. Marie Villafafia and others. The plea federal felony offense surrounding his sexual that Epstein would plead guilty to at least one the numerous defense attorneys progressively assaults of more than 30 minor girls. From there, would ultimately plead to only two state court negotiated more favorable terms so that Epstein 6 EFTA00078998 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 7 of 42 reflected in felony offenses and would serve only county jail time. Many of the negotiations are e-mails between Lefkowitz and the U.S. Attorney's Office. See generally Exhibit "A." 10. The evidence supporting these dozen charges was overwhelming, including the interlocking consistent testimony of several by minor girls, all made automatically admissible in a federal criminal sexual assault prosecution operation ofFed. R. Evid. 414. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 4. in 12. The correspondence also shows that the U.S. Attorney's Office was interested from learning finding a place to conclude a plea bargain that would effectively keep the victims all what was happening through the press. The Office wrote in an e-mail to defense counsel: The 7 EFTA00078999 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 8 of 42 and U.S. Attorney's Office was aware that most of the victims of Epstein, including Jane Doe #1 Jane Doe #2, resided well outside the Miami area in the West Palm Beach area. The Office was also aware that the chances of press coverage of a case filed in Miami would be significantly less likely to reach the'Palm Beach area. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 29. 13. On about September 24, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, regarding the agreement. The e-mail stated that the Government and Epstein's counsel U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 153 (emphases added). 14. On about September 25, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz stating: U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 156. 15. On about September 26, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz in which she stated: 8 EFTA00079000 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 9 of 42 MI Apparently the illagailligagreed to between the Government and Epstein's defense counsel was that no mention would be made of the non-prosecution agreement between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein, as no subsequent mention was made to the victims of the non-prosecution agreement and a confidentiality provision was made part of that agreement (as discussed below). U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 359. 16. On about September 25, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a letter to Jay Jefkowitz in which it suggested that the victims should be represented in civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not an experienced U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 157. The U.S. Attorney's Office continued to push a different attorney in part because it would reduce publicity, explaining that Id. 17. On about September 24, 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office formally 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 significantly, the felony NPA gave Epstein a promise that he would not be prosecuted for a series of federal offenses involving his sexual abuse of more than 30 minor girls. The NPA instead allowed Epstein to plead guilty to two state felony offenses for solicitation of prostitution and 9 EFTA00079001 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 10 of 42 set up a procedure whereby a victim of procurement of minors for prostitution. The NPA also d with a civil claim against Epstein, Epstein's sexual abuse could obtain an attorney to procee t from Epstein. To obtain an attorney provided that the victim agreed to limit damages sough to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § paid for by Epstein, the victim would have to agree es of $150,000 against Epstein — an 2255 (i.e., under a law that provided presumed damag 00). The agreement was signed by Epstein amount that Epstein argued later was limited to $50,0 , on about September 24, 2007. Non- and his legal counsel, as well as the U.S. Attorney's Office Prosecution Agreement, Exhibit "E." agreed to, a provision in the non- IS. Epstein insisted on, and the U.S. Attorney's Office . In particular, the agreement stated: "The prosecution agreement that made the agreement secret part of any public record. If the United parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made t or any compulsory process commanding States receives a Freedom of Information Act reques to Epstein before making the disclosure." the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice the U.S. Attorney's Office put itself in a By entering into such a confidentiality agreement, ding Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about position that conferring with the crime victims (inclu of the agreement — specifically the the non-prosecution agreement would violate terms agreement would confidentiality provision. Indeed, even notifying the victims about the , from September 24, 2007 through at least presumably have violated the provision. Accordingly U.S Attorney's Office did not notify any of June 2008 — a period of more than nine months -- the agreement. Epstein was well aware of this the victims of the existence of the non-prosecution this failure to notify the victims. Id.; U.S. failure to notify the victims and, indeed, arranged for 10 EFTA00079002 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 11 of 42 Attorney's Correspondence at 270; Transcript of Hearing in this case on July 11, 2008, at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29 (hereinafter cited as "Tr. July 11, 2008"). 19. A reasonable inference from the evidence is that the U.S. Attorney's Office — pushed by Epstein — wanted the non-prosecution agreement kept from public view because of the intense public criticism that would have resulted from allowing a politically-connected billionaire who had sexually abused more than 30 minor girls to escape from federal prosecution with only a county court jail sentence. Another reasonable inference is that the Office wanted the agreement concealed at this time because of the possibility that the victims could have objected to the agreement in court and perhaps convinced the judge reviewing the agreement not to accept it. 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. The U.S. Attorney's Office did not confer with any of the victims about these modifications of the agreement (or even notify them of the existence of these modifications) through at least June 2008 — a period of more than six months. See Supplemental Declaration of A. Marie Villafafla (doe. #35, at 1); U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 234-37; Tr. July 11, 2008, 18-19, 22-23, 28- 29.3 21. In October 2007, shortly after the initial plea agreement was signed, FBI agents contacted Jane Doe #1. On October 26, 2007, Special Agents E. Nesbitt KuyrkendalI and Jason Richards met in person with Jane Doe The Special Agents explained that Epstein would 3 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. II EFTA00079003 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 12 of 42 plead guilty to state charges involving another victim, 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 Special Agents did not explain that an agreement had already been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein for federal charges against Jane Doe #1. The agents could not have revealed this part of the non-prosecution agreement without violating the terms of the non-prosecution agreement. Whether the agents themselves had been informed of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement by the U.S. Attorney's Office is not certain. Because the plea agreement had already been reached with Epstein, the agents made no attempt to secure Jane Doe #1's view on the proposed resolution of the case. Exhibit "E," Tr. July 11, 2008 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23. 22. Jane Doe #1's (quite reasonable) understanding of the Special Agent's explanation 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. Jane Doe #1 also at understood her own case was move forward towards possible prosecution. Tr. July 11, 2008, 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29. 23. On about November 27, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman sent an e-mail to Office Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein. The e-mail stated that the U.S. Attorney's had an obligation to notify the victims' 12 EFTA00079004 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 13 of 42 U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 255 (emphasis rearranged). 24. On about November 29,2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a draft of a crime victim notification letter to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The notification letter would have explained: The letter then would have gone on to explain that Epstein would The letter would not have explained that, as part of the agreement with Epstein, the Justice Department had previously agreed not to prosecute Epstein for any of the numerous federal offenses that had been committed. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 256-59. 25. Because of concerns from Epstein's attorneys, 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 no time before reaching the non-prosecution agreement did the Justice Department notify any victims, including for example Jane Doe #1, about the non-prosecution agreement. The victims were therefore prevented from exercising their CVRA right to confer with prosecutors about the case and about the agreement. Epstein 13 EFTA00079005 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 14 of 42 was aware of these violations of the CVRA and, indeed, pressured the U.S. Attorney's Office to commit these violations. Tr. July 11, 2008, at 9. 26. On about December 6, 2007, Jeffrey H. Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, noting the U.S. Attorney's Office's legal obligations to keep victims informed of the The letter stated: U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 191-92 (emphasis added). 27. Despite this recognition of its obligation to keep victims about the non-prosecution agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not follow through and inform the victims of the non-prosecution agreement. To the contrary, as discussed below, it continued to tell the victims that the case was "under investigation." Tr. July I I, 2008, at 4-5, 18-19, 22-29. 28. On December 13, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein, rebutting allegations that had apparently been made against the 14 EFTA00079006 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 15 of 42 AUSA handling the case by the Epstein defense team. (The Justice Department concluded the allegations were meritless.) The letter stated that a federal indictment against Epstein gsw The letter also recounted that U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 269. 29. The December 13, 2007, letter also reveals that the Justice Department stopped making victim notifications because of U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 270 (emphasis added). It was a deviation from the Justice Department's standard practice to negotiate with defense counsel about the extent of crime victim notifications. 30. The December 13, 2007, letter also demonstrates that the Justice Department was well aware of who the victims of Epstein's sexual offenses were. The Justice Department was prepared to make notifications to the victims, but suspended those notifications only because objections from defense counsel. Id. 31. The December 13, 2007, letter reveals it would have been possible to confer with the victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The U.S. Attorney's Office was fully able to 15 EFTA00079007 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 16 of 42 confer with Epstein's counsel about the parameters of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, but refused to confer with Epstein's victims about the Agreement. Id. 32. 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. A reasonable inference from the evidence is that Epstein used his significant political and social connections to lobby the Justice Department to avoid significant federal prosecution. The Justice Department has in its possession internal documents (i.e., phone logs, emails, etc.) that would reveal the event of those lobbying efforts. The Justice Department, however, has refused to make these materials available to the victims. 33. On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received letters from the FBI advising them that "Nhis case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." Exhibits "F" & "G." The statement in the notification letter was misleading and, in fact, false. The case was not currently "under investigation." To the contrary, the federal cases involving Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 had been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed previously. Moreover, the FBI did not notify Jane Doe #1 or Jane Doc #2 that a plea agreement had been reached previously, and that part of the agreement was a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Exhibit "E." Whether the FBI was aware of this fact at this time is unclear. In any event, the FBI was acting at the direction of the U.S. Attorney's Office, which clearly did not confer with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 about the case and, by concealing the true state of affairs, and failed to treat Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 with fairness. Epstein was aware of 16 EFTA00079008 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 17 of 42 these actions of the U.S. Attorney's Office and, indeed, solicited these actions of the U.S. Attorney's Office. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 191-92, 270. 34. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 relied on the representations of the U.S. Attorney's Office to their detriment. Had they known the true facts of the case — i.e., that Epstein had negotiated a non-prosecution agreement — they would have taken steps to object to that agreement. Tr. July 11, 2008 at 4-6, 18-19, 28-29. 35. Undersigned counsel believes that the FBI was lead to believe that their investigation of Epstein was going to lead to a federal criminal prosecution and that the FBI was also mislead by the U.S. Attorney's office about the status of the case. 36. In early 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 believed that criminal prosecution of Epstein was extremely important. They also desired to be consulted by the FBI and/or other representatives of the federal government about the prosecution of Epstein. In light of the letters that they had received around January 10, they believed that a criminal investigation of Epstein was on-going — including investigation into Epstein's crimes against them -- and that they would Tr. be contacted before the federal government reached any final resolution of that investigation. July 11, 2008, at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29. 37. On January 31, 2008, Jane Doe #1 met with FBI Agents and AUSA's from the U.S. The Attorney's Office. She provided additional details of Epstein's sexual abuse of her. had AUSA's did not disclose to Jane Doe #1 at this meeting (or any other meeting) that they already negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Exhibit "H." 38. On about February 25, 2008, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Child Lefkowitz, Epstein's criminal defense counsel, explaining that the Justice Department's 7 EFTA00079009 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 18 of 42 Exploitation Obscenity Section (CEOS) had agreed to review Epstein's objections to the proposed plea agreement that had been reached with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The letter indicated that, should CEOS reject Epstein's objections to the agreement, then U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 39. On May 30, 2008, another of Mr. Edwards's clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that "Whis case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." Exhibit "I." The statement in the notification letter was misleading and, in fact, false. The case was not currently "under investigation." To the contrary, the case had been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed previously. Exhibit "E." 40. In mid-June 2008, Mr. Edwards contacted the AUSA handling the case 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 against these victims, hoping to secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein. The AUSA an