EFTA00184224

Case 203-aavag7/36-1041 Mown:writ 51/2-110ntEgatitheal EWE/ Sedk etINKM.0100116a4012161 
16 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson 
JANE DOES #1 AND #2, 
Petitioners, 
I 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Respondent. 
UNITED STATES' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 
JANE DOES #1 AND #2'S MOTION TO HAVE 
THEIR FACTS ACCEPTED BECAUSE OF 
THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO CONTEST ANY OF THE FACTS IDE49l 
The United States, by and through the undersigned, hereby opposes Petitioners' Motion to 
have their "Statement of Undisputed Material Facts" accepted as true [DE49]. Petitioners argue that 
the Court should accept their Statement as true, despite its conclusory allegations and internal 
inconsistencies, solely because of the United States' failure to stipulate to the Statement. The Court 
should deny the motion because: (1) Petitioners have misstated that United States' efforts at reaching 
agreement on the Statement; (2) the "Undisputed Material Facts" are irrelevant, as Petitioners have 
previously acknowledged; (3) agreeing to the "Undisputed Material Facts" demanded by Petitioners 
would have required the United States to violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) and/or 
constitutional and ethical mandates; and (4) the United States is not obligated to agree to any "facts," 
especially those that are incomplete or false. 
EFTA00184844

Case 9.0B-ovalf7354KAIM Onaumtemlf 3112-310ntEakteal EIBBISOdketDMIT2420110118a0get316f 
16 
BACKGROUND 
In DE 49, Petitioners ask the Court to accept as true their proposed "Statement of Undisputed 
Material Facts" contained in DE48 because they claim that the United States has failed "to advise 
the victims of what facts they are contesting." Petitioners then spend several pages making 
unsupported assertions and reciting from letters and email correspondence in an attempt to persuade 
the Court to adopt as true the Petitioners' averments even when the falsity of some of those "facts" 
is apparent from the text itself. 
Contrary to their assertions, the Petitioners have not been attempting to negotiate with the 
government for more than 30 months. As set forth in the Procedural I Iistory Section of the United 
States' Opposition to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime 
Victim Rights Act ("CVRA"), at the last hearing on the Petitioners' Emergency Petition, on August 
14, 2008, counsel for Petitioners stated to the Court, "I believe that you do have a sufficient record, 
in that I don't think that — I think that we're in agreement that additional evidence does not need to 
be taken in the case for Your Honor to make a ruling." (DE27 at 4 (emphasis added).) 
Thereafter, there was no contact regarding the CVRA petitioner for years — until the Court 
issued its administrative order closing the case. A flurry of activity ensued. Efforts were made to 
resolve the matter amicably, without success, including allowing the Petitioners, that is Jane Does 
#1 and #2, and their counsel, the opportunity to meet with the U.S. Attorney, as Jeffrey Epstein's 
attorneys did.' 
Despite the Petitioners' earlier statement to the Court that no additional facts were needed, 
many hours were spent trying to revise the Petitioners' proposed statement of facts so that it would 
'Only Jane Doe #1 and her counsel elected to attend a meeting with the U.S. Attorney. 
2 
EFTA00184845

Case 9.416-O1741O/35-1O11M1 nutsminernif 3€2 -21Driteatthrsal Eta@ Sedket kletif/J0281201R3a 
01416f 
16 
contain only facts, not argument, not inferences, not incorrect innuendos.' Even after the U.S. 
Attorney's Office advised Petitioners that the Justice Department's position was that the CVRA's 
rights only attached upon the filing of federal criminal charges and, hence, that none of the 
Petitioners' proposed facts were relevant, further attempts were made. Petitioners' counsel, 
however, demonstrated no interest in proposed compromises. Specific factual corrections also were 
suggested and rejected' Thus, counsel for Petitioners know that some of the proposed "undisputed 
material facts" are in fact disputed and, in many cases, wrong. 
'The U.S. Attorney's Office also repeatedly reminded Mr. Cassell of the Justice 
Department's policy not to comment on the guilt or innocence of an unconvicted person. The 
ABA's Model Rule of Professional Conduct on the Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor contains 
similar guidance. For example, there has been no civil or criminal finding by any judge or jury that: 
defendant Jeffrey Epstein (a billionaire with significant with significant political 
connections) sexually abused more than 30 minor girls at his mansion in West Palm 
Beach (sic), Florida, and elsewhere. Epstein performed repeated lewd, lascivious, 
and sexual acts on them, including (but not limited to) masturbation, touching of their 
sexual organs, using vibrators or sexual toys on them, coercing them into sexual acts, 
and digitally penetrating them. Because Epstein used a means of interstate commerce 
and knowingly traveled in interstate commerce to engage in abuse of Jane Doe #1 
and Jane Doe #2 (and the other victims), he committed violations of federal law, 
including repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. 
(DE48 at 3-4 1 1.) Jane Does No. 1 and No. 2 had the opportunity to prove these allegations at trial 
but elected to sign confidential settlement agreements where, presumably, there was no 
acknowledgement of criminal or civil liability. Respectfully, the U.S. Attorney's Office cannot 
express a factual position, immaterial to the present litigation, on whether Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") 
committed crimes (other than those to which he pled guilty in Palm Beach County Circuit Court). 
'For example, Petitioners were repeatedly advised the Epstein lived in Palm Beach, not West 
Palm Beach. Even this simple correction was ignored. (See DE48 at 3-4.) 
3 
EFTA00184846

Case Stifeckvall7364MI Olanuument 3€2-119nteathaal EbSTILSOclaet 04var2/2.011201feag
jef5leof 
16 
ARGUMENT 
I. 
ALL OF THE "UNDISPUTED FACTS" ARE IRRELEVANT. 
In their motion asking the Court to accept as true all of their purported "undisputed material 
facts," Petitioners rely on only two citations, the CVRA's "right to confer with the attorney in the 
case and Local Rule 88.10(0), which governs discovery in criminal cases. 
Local Rule 88.10(0) reads: "The parties shall make every possible effort in good faith to 
stipulate to all facts or points of law the truth and existence of which is not contested and the early 
resolution of which will expedite the trial." (Emphasis added.) Contrary to Petitioners' suggestion, 
reaching agreement on Petitioners' "Statement of Undisputed Material Facts" would not expedite 
the resolution of this matter. As the United States has explained since August 1, 2008, at the very 
start of the litigation, (see DE19,) — and as admitted by Petitioners during the hearing on August 14, 
2008, (see DE27 at 3) — no additional facts are needed for the Court to resolve the Emergency 
Petition and Petitioners' Motion seeking a finding that the CVRA was violated. The only material 
fact is that the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida never filed federal 
'Whether or not the CVRA applies is the central question in dispute in this matter because 
no federal criminal case was ever filed against Jeffrey Epstein and one is certainly not pending now. 
The undersigned knows of no case where the "right to confer with the attorney in the case" has been 
interpreted to allow victims to demand that the Government confer repeatedly— even after good faith 
efforts at reaching compromise have failed — in a case filed by victims against the Government 
pursuant to the CVRA. Nonetheless, Petitioners' argument seems to be that, because they aver that 
the CVRA applies, the Government's failure to accord them their very expansive reading of the 
CVRA's "right to confer" is a further violation of the CVRA. At least one court has noted and 
rejected this Catch-22: "the Court refuses to adopt an interpretation of [the CVRAJ that prohibits the 
government from raising legitimate arguments in support of its opposition to a motion simply 
because the arguments in support of its opposition to a motion may hurt a victim's feeling or 
reputation. More pointedly, such a dispute is precisely the kind of dispute a court should not involve 
itself in since it cannot do so without potentially compromising its ability to be impartial to the 
government and defendant, the only true parties to the trial of the indictment." United Stalest 
Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 428 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). 
4 
EFTA00184847

case .1118-owe-Ilfabi Illineummtml382-1EntEnalensalErtalifiladlitetlaelM/1O10011Badi!ate1616f 
16 
criminal charges against Jeffrey Epstein. That fact is undisputed. 
Accordingly, all of the "facts" contained in Petitioners' statement are not "material" and the 
resolution of those "facts" will not "expedite the trial." Quite simply, all of the allegations, 
inferences, and innuendos contained in Petitioners' statement serve no purpose relevant to this 
litigation. 
II. 
AGREEING WITH MANY OF PETITIONERS' "FACTS" WOULD HAVE 
VIOLATED FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL 
MANDATES. 
Several of the "facts" that Petitioners include allege that Epstein and others have committed 
crimes for which they were never charged or convicted. Others refer to matters that were occurring 
before the grand jury. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, constitutional mandates, and the 
ABA Model Rules on the Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor address several of the items to 
which the Petitioners asked the Government to agree. The Government correctly refused to agree 
to those "facts," and the Petitioners cannot now use that refusal to ask the Court to adopt those 
"facts" as true. 
A. 
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) 
Rule 6(e) states that "an attorney for the government" "must not disclose a matter occurring 
before the grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B).5 Courts have construed "a matter occurring 
before the grand jury" to include "events which have already occurred before the grand jury, such 
as a witness's testimony, [and] matters which will occur, such as statements which reveal the identity 
of persons who will be called to testify or which report when the grand jury will return an 
'Petitioners have no similar obligation. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(A). 
5 
EFTA00184848

case 21118-evaltraSIKANI Catuunmantt 512-118nteatirtaxd EirBalgOolleadiarMID1203B414ef716f 
16 
indictment."' In re Grand Jury Investigation, 610 F.2d 202, 216-17 (5th Cir. 1980). 
While Petitioners were merely asking the Government to agree with their assertions of "fact" 
based upon materials Petitioners had received from counsel for Epstein, rather than asking the 
Government to make affirmative disclosures of grand jury material, "Rule 6(e) does not create a type 
of secrecy which is waived once public disclosure occurs." In re Motions of Dow Jones & Co., 142 
F.3d 496, 505 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting In re North, 16 F.3d 1234, 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). "[Elven 
if material concerning the grand jury investigation had been disclosed to the public, the Government 
attorney ... had a duty to maintain grand jury secrecy. This attorney could neither confirm nor deny 
the information presented by the 'external party.' Senate of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico'. 
United States Dep't of Justice, 1992 WL 119127 at *3 (D.D.C. May 13, 1992) (citing Barry'. 
United States, 740 F. Supp. 888, 891 (D.D.C. 1990) ("Rule 6(e) does not create a type of secrecy 
'It is worth noting that, within the same case, a court can take differing positions on this. 
Compare: 
[T]he disclosure of information obtained from a source independent of the grand jury 
proceedings, such as a prior government investigation, does not violate Rule 6(e). 
A discussion of actions taken by government attorneys or officials, e.g., a 
recommendation by the Justice Department attorneys to department officials that an 
indictment be sought against an individual does not reveal any information about 
matters occurring before the grand jury. Nor does a statement of opinion as to an 
individual's potential criminal liability violate the dictates of Rule 6(e). 
With: 
Disclosures which expressly identify when an indictment would be presented to the 
grand jury, the nature of the crimes which would be charged, and the number of 
persons who would be charged run afoul of the secrecy requirements codified in Rule 
6(e). 
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 610 F.2d at 217, 218. In light of such conflicting directives, the 
government must err, if at all, on the side of treating all information related to grand jury proceedings 
as "matters occurring before the grand jury." 
6 
EFTA00184849

Case 9.1111B-orar3S-M1111 Oxfam 
rrit 3%17-liententanatol EttgaaddRet DMEIT02D13011Bagi!Qef816f 
16 
which is waived once public disclosure occurs. The Government is obligated to stand silent 
regardless of what is reported, accurate or not, by the press.").) 
The reasons for Rule 6(e) are multiple: 
In addition to preventing adverse pretrial publicity about a person who may be 
indicted and subsequently tried, secrecy protects the reputation of a person under 
investigation who is not indicted. The secrecy requirement also encourages reluctant 
witnesses to testify without fear of reprisals from those against whom testimony is 
given, prevents tampering with grand jury witnesses in an effort to alter their trial 
testimony, and permits the grand jury to deliberate free from the influence of 
publicity. Finally, secrecy prevents disclosures to persons who may be interested in 
the investigation if the facts are known or might attempt to escape if they have reason 
to believe certain indictments will issue. 
United States'. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing United States'. Procter & 
Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 (1958)). 
Several of the "facts" contained in Petitioners' submission contain allegations related to 
matters occurring before the grand jury. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e), the Government cannot 
confirm or deny the accuracy of those allegations. 
B. 
Due Process and the ABA Rule for Prosecutors 
As noted above, one of the reasons behind 6(e) is to protect the reputations of persons who 
are under investigation but not indicted. This is a corollary to what the Court of Appeals found to 
be a due process protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution — 
namely, "that the liberty and property concepts of the Fifth Amendment protect an individual from 
being publicly and officially accused of having committed a serious crime, particularly where the 
accusations gain wide notoriety." See In re Smith, 656 F.2d 1101, 1106 (5th Cir. 1981) (citation 
7 
EFTA00184850

fl ew- 
gle-coala7/364%141 Dnzunniefitt 362 -110n tffs 
tad Elia@ EDdRet B0€117320120118a Oat ef916f 
16 
omitted)! In Smith, the petitioner filed a motion seeking to have his name stricken from the factual 
proffers of two criminal defendants. Smith had not been criminally charged or convicted. The Court 
of Appeals agreed with Smith, castigating the Government: 
no legitimate governmental interest is served by an official public smear of an 
individual when that individual has not been provided a forum in which to vindicate 
his rights.... 
[W]e completely fail to perceive how the interests of criminal justice were advanced 
at the time of the plea hearings by such an attack on the Petitioner's character. The 
presumption of innocence, to which every criminal defendant is entitled, was 
forgotten by the Assistant United States Attorney in drafting and reading aloud in 
open court the factual resumes which implicated the Petitioner in criminal conduct 
without affording him a forum for vindication. 
Id. at 1106, 1107. The Court of Appeals ordered the District Court Clerk's Office to "completely 
and permanently obliterate and strike from the records of the pleas of guilty . . . any and all 
identifying reference to or name of Mr. Smith, the Petitioner, so that such references may not be used 
as a public record to impugn the reputation of Petitioner." Id. at 1107. The Court further ordered 
that all of the pleadings in the case be sealed. Id. 
Courts have interpreted Smith to apply not only to references to unindicted co-conspirators 
in indictments and factual proffers, but also to motion papers. See, e.g., United States. Anderson, 
55 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1168 (D. Kan. 1999) ("After carefully reviewing the government's moving 
papers on the conflict of interest issue, the court can fmd no reason why the government might have 
`forgotten' the presumption of innocence in such a public pleading ...") (citing Smith, 656 F.2d at 
1107); United States.. Holy Land Foundation, 624 F.3d 685 (5th Cir. 2010) (Fifth Amendment 
rights of organization were violated when its name was listed among 246 unindicted coconspirators 
'This opinion of the Fifth Circuit was made binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit 
pursuant to Bonner'. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane). 
8 
EFTA00184851

CAsse€0338cov8EBB5614AW Obnaarrea0M-1EnEnteted frIkaaralcatt14:04,O7/1O,2O16a@gisof 
16 
in pre-trial brief). 
The Model Rules further advise prosecutors not to engage in comments that "have a 
substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused." (ABA Model Rule 3.8.) 
In Petitioners' "Statement of Undisputed Material Facts," they included allegations related 
to crimes for which Epstein and several other individuals were neither charged nor convicted. 
Pursuant to Smith and its progeny, and as previously explained to Petitioners' counsel, the 
Government denies all such allegations, including but not limited to the allegations contained in 
paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 17, 37, 52, and 53.8
III. 
THERE IS NO LEGAL OBLIGATION THAT THE UNITED STATES 
ADMIT OR DENY THE PETITIONERS' "FACTS," MANY OF WHICH ARE 
FALSE. 
Although docketed as a Civil Case, the CVRA does not provide for a civil cause of action. 
See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). Rather, the CVRA creates rights for victims in federal criminal 
cases where criminal charges have already been filed. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(1) ("In any court 
proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime victim 
is afforded the rights described in subsection (a)."); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 60 (incorporating 
CVRA into Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure). Thus, there is no obligation in this case, as there 
might be in a case governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where sovereign immunity was 
waived, that requires the United States to make any evidentiary disclosures. 
Petitioners next rely on Local Rule 88.10(O), which governs discovery in criminal cases. 
First, no standing discovery order has been entered because no criminal proceedings are pending. 
81t should be noted that Petitioners preface many of these allegations with afalse imprimatur 
of FBI findings. Compare, for example, paragraph 5 with the pages cited in support thereof. 
9 ' 
EFTA00184852

Case 201B-csar36-IIIMII Oletwaffere 362-1lOntealemsd tbSTIL Mast INVOMBIOON6ageatlit df116f 
16 
Second, victims are not "parties" to criminal proceedings. See, e.g., In re Amy Unknown, 
F.3d 
2011 WL 988882 at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 22, 2011). ("Crime victims have not been recognized 
as parties, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not allow them to intervene as parties to 
a prosecution.); United States'. Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46, 53 (1st Cir. 2010) 
("Notwithstanding the rights reflected in the restitution statutes, crime victims are not parties to a 
criminal sentencing proceeding.). Third, many of Petitioners' asserted "facts" are not facts at all, but 
instead are inferences, legal conclusions, or innuendos. And, most importantly, many are plainly 
false. 
As stated above, the United States does not believe that any of these issues are material to 
the resolution of the Emergency Petition or Jane Does #1 and #2's Motion for Finding of Violation 
of the CVRA [DE1 and DE48]. Nonetheless, to correct misstatements in the record, the United 
States points out the following examples of areas where Petitioners have included "undisputed facts" 
that are known to them to be in dispute. 
Prior to Epstein's state court plea, Jane Doe #2 was represented by counsel for Epstein, was 
adverse to any investigation of Epstein, and contacted other potential victim-witnesses and advised 
them not to speak to investigators. When interviewed by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, 
Jane Doe #2 denied any sexual abuse by Epstein and said that Epstein was an "awesome man" and 
that she would many him. Jane Doe #2 further expressed a belief to the government that Epstein 
should not be prosecuted. 
Jane Doe #2 not only made the government's investigative efforts more difficult, she also 
made the victim notification process more difficult. A great deal of the complaints made by the 
Petitioners come from the delay between the time that Epstein signed the NPA on September 24, 
10 
EFTA00184853

Case 9IIIIE-ozialliffialll Ilbritanni SB2 -31Bn teak teal bbSaSedRet B41102/2010011Bageatt df216f 
16 
2007, and when he actually entered his guilty plea on June 30, 2008. (See DE 48 at 1125, 32, et 
seq.) As set forth in their "Statement of Undisputed Facts," this was the period when Epstein 
"sought higher level review within the Department of Justice." (Id. at 1 32.) As is known to 
Petitioners, but as they neglected to mention in their "Statement of Undisputed Material Facts," one 
oldie unfounded allegations made against AUSA Villafafla by Epstein's counsel during the "higher 
level review" was that she "wrongfully" tried to include Jane Doe #2 among the list of Epstein's 
victims. Ironically, these same attempts to protect Jane Doe #2's rights are now being used by Jane 
Doe #2 to allege violations of the CVRA. 
Petitioners also allege that the letters sent to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 during the period 
when Epstein was pursuing Justice Department review, which stated that their cases were still under 
investigation, were false. Yet Petitioners know that the investigation was ongoing because, as stated 
in their own "Statement of Undisputed Material Facts," on "January 31, 2008, Jane Doe #1 met with 
FBI Agents and AUSA's from the U.S. Attorney's Office." (DE48 at 17.) And another individual 
represented by Petitioners' counsel was interviewed on May 28, 2008. These and other interviews 
were conducted so that, if Epstein did not follow through with the NPA, the Office would be ready 
to address that situation as appropriate. Thus, the investigation was, in fact, continuing. 
The Petitioners also know that the terms of the NPA were disclosed to Jane Doe #1 shortly 
after the NPA was signed. Jane Doe #1 avers that she believed that Epstein agreed to pay damages 
to her, but agreed that he would still be federally prosecuted for criminal charges based on crimes 
allegedly committed against her. Petitioners aver that it is a "fact" that this was a "quite reasonable 
understanding." (DE48 at 12.) The Government denies that this is what Jane Doe #1 was told (see 
DE14), although there could have been an honest misunderstanding. The Government denies, 
11 
EFTA00184854

Case fltelktwantlFIKAM Ilktetumnantt 362-11BnteatemBal FtSa Mast lik1037801D1301Ba gte* df316f 
16 
however, that it was "quite reasonable" to believe that a criminal defendant would agree to pay 
damages to Jane Doe #1 as part of his resolution of a criminal case involving another victim while 
still agreeing that he could be criminally charged for acts involving Jane Doe #1. 
Furthermore, Petitioners know well that one of the reasons why the terms of the NPA were 
not disclosed to additional victims when Epstein began appealing to the Justice Department was 
because of concerns that, if Epstein did not follow through with the NPA and federal criminal 
charges were thereafter filed against him, Epstein's counsel would argue at trial that the victims had 
been told, by the prosecution team, that they would receive money if they claimed that they had been 
victimized by Epstein. This was not a frivolous concern; such allegations actually were raised by 
Epstein's counsel in depositions of some of the identified victims that were filed before this Court. 
Petitioners also suggest that efforts were made to move proceedings to Miami to keep these 
Petitioners from learning of court proceedings. Yet, it is undisputed that Petitioners were notified, 
through counsel, of the only public court proceeding — Epstein's state court plea and sentencing — 
and were specifically invited to attend. The Petitioners also know that some of the victims in the 
case were terrified that their family members might learn of their connection to the investigation and 
that other victims had privacy concerns that were very different than those of Petitioners. Having 
the proceedings outside the glare of the victims' hometown press would have allowed those other 
victims to participate while maintaining some semblance of privacy. 
Petitioners also reiterate baseless allegations made against AUSA Villafafia regarding the 
choice of the attorney-representative for the victims, despite knowing that: (1) the issue of the 
attorney-representative arose after the NPA was already negotiated; (2) the Justice Department 
investigated these allegations and found them to be meritless; and (3) the U.S. Attorney's Office 
12 
EFTA00184855

Case Qa6-mye4RID7art-MANI Damnmat 
-1®nt€itStsal EingaSOdReakINT/2.O1A0116adilatb df416f 
16 
elected to use a Special Master (retired U.S. District Court Judge 
MO) to make the final 
selection. 
The Petitioners also know that the AUSA, the agents, and the FBI's victim-witness 
coordinator obtained counseling services for some of the identified victims. And Petitioners are well 
aware that the AUSA even provided notifications of Epstein's work release status. 
Paragraph 17 of Petitioners' filing also misstates a provision of the NPA. Petitioners stated 
that "[t]o obtain an attorney paid for by Epstein, the victim would have to agree to proceed 
exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (i.e., under a law that provided presumed damages of $150,000 
against Epstein[.]" Section 2255 actually provides minimum presumed damages of $150,000, not 
a "cap" of $150,000. 
There are a number of additional inferences and legal conclusions interspersed in the 
"Statement of Undisputed Material Facts," which the Government denies. For example, contrary 
to Petitioners' contentions, the Government denies that notifying the victims about the NPA would 
have violated the NPA (DE48 at 10, 918); and that the U.S. Attorney's Office wanted the NPA to 
be kept confidential to avoid public criticism or to avoid victims from convincing "the judge 
reviewing the agreement not to accept it" (DE48 at 11, 919). The Government denies these and all 
other unsupported innuendos advanced by Petitioners. 
CONCLUSION 
For the reasons set forth herein and in the United States' Response to Jane Does #1 and #2's 
Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on 
Appropriate Remedies, the Petitioners' "Statement of Undisputed Facts" is completely irrelevant to 
the Court's determination of the merits of this case. As both of the parties agreed shortly after the 
13 
EFTA00184856

Case 91118-aari-allM6-1O1.1tYll Danimiantt 5122- lantana& tatil 
16 
6133111 IM &tat INV0ITP/2.011201ifiagi!eyt d15161 
filing of the Emergency Petition, the Court had all of the relevant facts back in August 2008 and the 
matter was ready to be decided. 
Petitioners cannot demand that the Government agree to their allegations, innuendos, and 
legal conclusions, especially when many of them would run afoul of Rule 6(e) and the Fifth 
Amendment and others are clearly false. Accordingly, Petitioners' Motion to Have Their Facts 
Accepted should be denied. 
Respectfully submitted, 
WIFREDO A. 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
By: 
s/ Dexter A. Lee 
DEXTER A. LEE 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fla. Bar No. 0936693 
99 N.E. 4th Street 
Miami, Florida 33132 
(305) 961-9320 
Fax: (305) 530-7139 
E-mail: dexter.leeausdoi.gov 
Attorney for Respondent 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 7, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing document 
with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. 
s/ Dexter A. Lee 
DEXTER A. LEE 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
14 
EFTA00184857

Case 983-¢:xv4101736-10484 Thacuanmemtt 3e2 - 1E n t aff tehetil EtallEedltetlaclfalf/2/2.O120116adeabie CLEW 
16 
SERVICE LIST 
Jane Does 1 and 2'. United States, 
Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida 
Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., 
Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 
(954) 524-2820 
Fax: (954) 524-2822 
E-mail: brad®Dathtoiustice.com 
Paul G. Cassell 
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the 
University of Utah 
332 S. 1400 E. 
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 
(801) 585-5202 
Fax: (801) 585-6833 
E-mail: casselp(alaw.utah.edu 
Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 
15 
EFTA00184858

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-11 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 2 
EXHIBIT 
81 
EFTA00184859

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-11 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
emailed the defense stating that United States Attorney 
would accept no 
less than 18 months of incarceration, following by a one-year term of house arrest. 
Federal Prosecutors Misrepresented the Number of Alleged "Victims." 
17. 
In September 2007, in order to add additional pressure on Mr. Epstein to execute a 
deferred prosecution agreement, AUSA 
claimed that there were "40" minors on 
the government's list of purported § 2255 victims. To compound that misleading 
characterization, she continued to insist that a guardian-ad-litem be appointed to represent 
these 
orted
 in the proceedings. See Tab 24, September 19, 2007 Email 
from M. 
to J. Lefkowitz. 
18. 
When challenged as to whether there was a genuine need for a guardian, given that Ms. 
continued to refuse to disclose the names or any other information about her 
putative list of "minors," she eventually conceded that only "1 is definitely under 18 still, 
and I think there is another minor." See Tab 25, September 23, 2007 Email from M. 
to J. Lefkowitz (emphasis added). 
19. 
The next day, AUSA 
retreated from the number "40," stating that she had now 
"compiled a list of 34 confirmed minor victims with no definition of how they would be 
considered as such.. There are six others, whose names we already have, who need to be 
interviewed by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time of their activity 
with Mr. Epstein." See Tab 26, September 24, 2007 Email from M. 
to J. 
Lefkowitz (emphasis added). This statement indicated that, at least the "six others" (and, 
as it turns out, all those identified except two) had reached the age of majority, and, in 
fact, no guardian was necessary to represent their interests. 
Defense Counsel was Falsely Advised That the Non Prosecution Agreement Would Be Kept 
Confidential. 
20. 
On September 24, Epstein and the USAO executed a Non Prosecution Agreement. 
21. 
His attorneys asked Ms. 
to "please do whatever you can to keep this from 
becomingpublic." See Tab 27, September 24, 2007 Email from J. Lefkowitz to M. 
22. 
Ms. 
replied that she had "forwarded your message only to 
[=], 
(Loune], and Rolando [Garcia]. I don't anticipate it going any further than that." Id. 
23. 
Ms. 
stated that the agreement would be "placed in the case file, which will be 
kept confidential since it also contains identifying information about the girls." Id. 
The Prosecution Immediately Notifies Three Plaintiffs That Mr. Epstein Has Executed A 
Non Prosecution Agreement 
24. 
In direct violation of these representations, "shortly after the signing," the government 
notified "three victims" of the "general terms" of the Non Prosecution Agreement. See 
5 
RFP MIA 000408 
EFTA00184860

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 9 
EXHIBIT 
82 
EFTA00184861

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 9 
j 
"Slonien, Jeff (USAFLS)" 
11/27/2007 01:55 PM 
To "Jay Lefkowitz"<JLefkowitayldrilantl.coo 
cc a, 
(USAPLS) 
bcc 
Subject Epstein 
Jay, 
Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner but I 
was a little under the weather yesterday. I hope that you enjoyed 
your Thanksgiving. 
Regarding the issue of due diligence concerning Judge 
selection, I'd like to make a few observations. First, Guy Lewis has 
known for some time that Judge 
was making reasonable 
efforts to secure Aaron Podhurst and Bob Jose hsber for this 
assignment. In fact, when I told you of Judge 
selection 
during our meeting last Wednesday, November 21th, you and 
Professor Dershowitz seemed very comfortable, and certainly not 
surprised, with the selection. Podhurst and Josephsberg are no 
strangers to nearly the entire Epstein defense team including Guy 
Lewis, Lili Ann Sanchez, Roy Black, and, apparently, Professor 
Dershowitz who said he knew Mr. Josephsberg from law school. 
Second, Podhurst and Josephsberg have long-standing stellar 
reputations for their legal acumen and ethics. It's bard for me to 
imagine how much more vetting needs to be done. 
The United States has a statutory obligation (Justice for All Act of 
2004) to notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and 
their rights associated with the agreement entered into by the 
United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion. Tomorrow will 
make one MI week since you were formally notified of the 
selection. I must insist that the vetting process come to an end. 
Therefore unless you provide me with a good faith objection to 
Judge IME selection by COB tomorrow, November 28, 2007, I 
will authorize the notification of the victims. Should you give me 
the go-ahead on Podhurst and Josephsberg selection by COB 
tomorrow, I will simultaneously send you a draft of the letter. I 
intend to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday, 
November 29th. Thanks, 
Jeff 
US_Atty_Cor_00255 
EFTA00184862

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 9 
3 
"VINigeria, Ann 
C. (USAFLS1* 
11/28/2007 04:46 PM 
To "Jay Lefkowitz" <JLetkowitz@Nridemicom> 
CO ai
l (USAFLS)" 
(USAFLS)" 
bcc 
Subject Epstein: Victim Notification Letter 
Dear Jay: 
Jeff asked that I forward the victim notification letter to you. It is 
attached. 
Thank you. 
cVictim Not{ fi cation Ltr.pdf>> 
A. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
«< Attachment 'Victim Notification Ltr.odr has been archived by user 
tommonStore/IT/Kirkland-Ellie' on '01/30/2008 00:30:07. 
US_Atty_Cor_00256 
EFTA00184863