EFTA00184224

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-38 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 2 
EXHIBIT 
108 
EFTA00185004

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-38 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 
(USAFLS) 
From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: 
Ann Mane C (USAFLS) 
2008 11 51 AM 
nson. aren 
SAFLS) 
Non4Drosecution Agreement in Epstein Case 
I I i 
- I am attaching the agreement. with addenda, for I iling with the Court under seal. 
We also noticed a couple of "misstatements" during the change of plea and wanted to call them to your 
attention. First, the Di'. ision of Corporations' documents show that the Florida Science Foundation was 
incorporated in November 2007, not a "couple of years ago" as reported by Mr. Epstein. Me address provided 
for the "office" of the Florida Science Foundation is Jack Goldberger's office suite, and neither the office 
building directory nor the office suite door reflects that such a business is located there, and neither the security 
guard nor any building tenant that FBI questioned knows of the existence of such a business. And, of course. 
Mr. Epstein could not have been working there -every day" when he hasn't been in Palm Beach County in the 
past six months. 
We will leave it to your discretion as to whether this should be brought to the Court's attention. 
Epstein 
Agrmt001.pdf 
it Marie Villafaila 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400 
West Palm Beach. Ft. 33401 
Tracking: 
713 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPB-001857 
EFTA00185005

Case 9:08-co-80736-KAM Document 362-39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 2 
EXHIBIT 
109 
EFTA00185006

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 
VIII4Fana, Ann Marie rr. (VRAF(-13) 
Prom: 
Sent; 
To: 
Co: 
Subject: 
Ann Merle 
our two client names ere.
2. 
Ted Leopold tTleopokkanechaw.00mi 
Thuriutny, Jul.008 4:28 PM 
Villafana, Ann 
(USAPL8) 
Spencer Kuvin 
RØ; Epstein Investigation 
If you need any other trtformstion please lel me know. 
Ted 
i 
€ 
-,---Ortglnal Message— 
From: VIllefena, Ann 
C. (UgARS)
sent Monday, June 
05:00PM 
TO: Ted Leopold 
Subject: Epstein Investigation 
Dear Tech Hare is my e•nntil address tun! (umlaut information. 
Thank you for your assistance. 
A. Mark Yilltyfrifia 
Assistant 11.S. Attorney 
SOO S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Pettit Rea" Ft. 3340; 
71» 
08-80736-CV-MARRA 
RFP WPR-001855 
EFTA00185007

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-40 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 
43 
EXHIBIT 
110 
EFTA00185008

Dee 9.29-coan-IISAIM Dont 
ge2-4EntEntatheal EIBEDSOdkettilgEDIMD12011Ba
43 
gibatef2421 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson 
JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 
UNITED STATES 
JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF 
THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON 
APPROPRIATE REMEDIES 
COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and 
through undersigned counsel, to move for a finding from this Court that the victims' rights under 
the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, have been violated by the U.S. 
Attorney's Office, and to request a hearing on the appropriate remedies for these violations. 
The victims have proffered a series of facts to the Government, which they have failed to 
contest. Proceeding on the basis of these facts,' it is clear that the U.S. Attorney's Office has 
repeatedly violated the victims' protected CVRA rights, including their right to confer with 
prosecutors generally about the case and specifically about a non-prosecution agreement the 
Office signed with the defendant, as well as their right to fair treatment. 
See 18 U.S.C. 
3771(a)(5) & (8). 
It is now beyond dispute, for example, that in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's 
Office formally signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that barred his 
The victims are contemporaneously filing a motion to have their facts accepted by the 
Court. 
EFTA00185009

Case 9.03-evallf/35-IltAMil Banomemit 
- 4I3ntEnetek teal Et BEL Se dlletEif 
galTh120116a gi!4 of 34(21 
43 
prosecution for numerous federal sex offenses he committed against the victims (as well as 
against many other minor girls). Rather than confer with the victims about this non-prosecution 
agreement, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein agreed to a "confidentiality" 
provision in the agreement barring its disclosure to anyone — including the victims. For the next 
nine months, as Epstein was well aware, the U.S. Attorney's Office assiduously concealed from 
the victims the existence of this signed non-prosecution agreement. Indeed, the Office went so 
far as to send (in January 2008) a false victim notification letter to the victims informing them - 
that the "case is currently under investigation." In fact, the U.S. Attorney's Office had already 
resolved the case three months earlier by signing the non-prosecution agreement. Again on May 
30, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent yet another victim notification letter to a recognized 
victim informing her that the "case is currently under investigation" and that it "can be a lengthy 
process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." 
Then in June 2008, on the eve of consummating Epstein's state guilty plea that was part of the 
non-prosecution agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office asked legal counsel for the victims to 
send a letter expressing the victims' views on why federal charges should be filed — not 
disclosing to the victims' legal counsel that this was a pointless exercise because the non-
prosecution agreement had already been signed some nine months earlier. 
These actions and many more like them constitute clear violations of Jane Doe #1 and 
Jane Doe #2's rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act, including the right to confer with 
prosecutors and the right to fair treament. The only argument that the U.S. Attorney's Office 
advances is that the CVRA does not apply because no indictment was formally filed in this case. 
But this position is inconsistent with both the CVRA's plain language, see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 
2 
EFTA00185010

Case 903-calraltal 
Oho=raft 3162-4Enteatiessal ELSELSOcthtetlittlfal0011Baglabef44(21 
43 
3771(0(1) (Justice Department agencies involved in the "detection" and "investigation" of 
federal crimes covered by CVRA), and with persuasive case law, see, e.g., In re Dean, 527 F.3d 
391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008) (victims should have been notified before pre-indictment plea reached). 
Moreover, the U.S. Attorney's Office itself was fully aware of its obligations to notify the 
victims in this case, as e-mails from the Office and other evidence make perfectly clear. The 
only reason that the Office concealed the existence of the non-prosecution agreement from the 
victims was not to comply with some legal restriction, but rather to avoid a firestorm of public 
controversy that would have erupted if the sweetheart plea deal with a politically-connected 
billionaire had been revealed. 
The Court should accordingly find that the U.S. Attorney's Office — in coordination with 
Jeffrey Epstein -- has violated the Act and set a briefing schedule and hearing on the proper 
remedy for those violations. 
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 
Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 offer the following statement of undisputed material facts. 
If the Government disputes any of these facts, the victims request an evidentiary hearing to prove 
each and every one of them:2
1. Between about 2001 and 2007, defendant Jeffrey Epstein (a billionaire with significant 
political connections) sexually abused more than 30 minor girls at his mansion in West Palm 
2 The Court should accept all these facts as true for reasons the victims explain in their 
contemporaneously-filed Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted 
Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of The Facts. The Court should also direct 
the Government to produce all evidence that it possesses supporting these facts, for reasons the 
victims explain in their contemporaneously-filed Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for 
Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence. 
3 
EFTA00185011

Case 9.28-corar364KASSI Intounnerra 462-463n teed lea 5bGEL %flat IDear0/2.01201Bagate1542 
43 
Beach, Florida, and elsewhere. Among the girls he sexually abused were Jane Doe #1 and Jane 
Doe #2. 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. See, e.g., Complaint, E.W. I. Epstein, Case 
No. 50 2008 CA 028058 XXXXMB AB (15th Cir. Palm Beach County, Florida); Complaint, 
L.M. I. Epstein, Case No 50 2008 CA 028051 XXXXMB AB (15th Cir. Palm Beach Count, 
Florida). 
2. Jeffrey Epstein flew at least one underage girl on his private jet for the purpose of 
forcing her to have sex with him and others. Epstein forced this underage girl to be sexually 
exploited by his adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, businessmen, and professional 
and personal acquaintances. Complaint, Jane Doe No. 102 I. Epstein, No. 9:09-CV-80656-
KAM (S.D. Fla. May 1, 2009). 
3. In 2006, at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation opened an investigation into allegations that Jeffrey 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 also investigating 
4 
EFTA00185012

Case Stille-avaM6-10}ail gleaumema 
-46ntepate gaol ZEBU_ Sedlletlitiai2201201Bageatebtlaf 
43 
the case. See generally U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "A" to this filing (hereinafter 
cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced by Bates page number stamp). 
4. The FBI soon determined that both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were victims of 
sexual assaults by Epstein while they were minors beginning when they were approximately 
fourteen years of age and approximately thirteen years of age respectively. Jane Doe #1, for 
example, provided detailed information about her abuse (and the abuse of Jane Doe #2) to the 
FBI on August 7, 2007. Exhibit "B." 
5. More. generally, the FBI through diligent investigation established that Epstein 
operated a large criminal enterprise that used paid employees and underlings to repeatedly find 
and bring minor girls to him. Epstein worked in concert as part of the enterprise with others, 
including Ghislane Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel, to obtain minor girls not only for his own 
sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others. The FBI determined that 
Epstein had committed dozens and dozens of federal sex crimes against dozens of minor girls 
between 2001 and 2007. They presented information to the U.S. Attorney's Office for criminal 
prosecution. See Exhibit "B"; U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 47-55. 
6. On about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe #1 a standard CVRA 
victim notification letter. The notification promised that the Justice Department would makes its 
"best efforts" to protect Jane Doe #1's rights, including "Nlie 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 victim of a federal offense and as someone protected by the CVRA. Jane Doe #1 
5 
EFTA00185013

e 
gt411B-O7-6O735-KAMI Etammwemg 
- itlentEnid red otisaiMdfitetidaTIMM0NEla
43 
• 
17. ef742f 
relied on these representations and believed that the Justice Department would protect these 
rights and keep her informed about the progress of her case. See Exhibit "C." 
7. On about August I I, 2007, Jane Doe #2 received a standard CVRA victim notification 
letter. 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 victim 
of a federal offense and as someone protected by the CVRA. Jane Doe #2 relied on these 
representations and believed that the Justice Department would protect these rights and keep her 
informed about the progress of her case. See Exhibit "D." 
8. Early in the investigation, the FBI agents and an Assistant U.S. Attorney had several 
meetings with Jane Doe #1. Jane Doe #2 was represented by counsel that was paid for by the 
criminal target Epstein and, accordingly, all contact was made through that attorney. 
9. In and around September 2007, plea discussions took place between Jeffrey Epstein, 
represented by numerous attorneys (including lead criminal defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz), and 
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, represented by Assistant U.S. 
Attorney A. 
Villafaila and others. The plea discussions generally began from the premise 
that Epstein would plead guilty to at least one federal felony offense surrounding his sexual 
assaults of more than 30 minor girls. From there, the numerous defense attorneys progressively 
negotiated more favorable terms so that Epstein would ultimately plead to only two state court 
6 
EFTA00185014

Case fielloyaD736-1KAMI Ducummentt 241112-4Bntaratemal EtSaSedketINVIMM13018a040184(21 
43 
felony offenses and would serve only county jail time. Many of the negotiations are reflected in 
e-mails between Leflcowitz and the U.S. Attorney's Office. See generally Exhibit "A." 
10. 
The evidence supporting these 
charges was overwhelming, including the interlocking consistent testimony of several dozen 
minor girls, all made automatically admissible in a federal criminal sexual assault prosecution by 
operation of Fed. R. Evict. 414. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 4. 
12. The correspondence also shows that the U.S. Attorney's Office was interested in 
finding a place to conclude a plea bargain that would effectively keep the victims from learning 
what was happening through the press. The Office wrote in an e-mail to defense counsel: AIM 
eine 
The 
7 
EFTA00185015

case 90Ba811126-1K141511 Datuumnant 
-4Bntemotheal EbSEDSZKaketli0743M913011Bagfe@efagif 
43 
U.S. Attorney's Office was aware that most of the victims of Epstein, including Jane Doe #1 and 
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 theiPalm 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 
EFTA00185016

14/AAA Cacatirrenti6e-44Enffentek-ed Erh.SIDMEttioitlie3011/11Y201Pahlageolgat 
43 
Apparently the `agreed 
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 
NPA gave Epstein a promise that he would not be prosecuted for a series of federal felony 
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 
EFTA00185017

Case 928-eassalifAltil etztetumerrrit 3/62-4Bn teat moat rot13IQ SD dltetlilearPOID11011BageaVit df1421 
43 
procurement of minors for prostitution. The NPA also set up a procedure whereby a victim of 
Epstein's sexual abuse could obtain an attorney to proceed with a civil claim against Epstein, 
provided that the victim agreed to limit damages sought from Epstein. To 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 — an 
amount that Epstein argued later was limited to $50,000). The agreement was signed by Epstein 
and his legal counsel, as well as the U.S. Attorney's Office, on about September 24, 2007. Non-
Prosecution Agreement, Exhibit "E." 
18. Epstein insisted on, and the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to, a provision in the non-
prosecution agreement that made the agreement 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." 
By entering into such a confidentiality agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office put itself in a 
position that conferring with the crime victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about 
the non-prosecution agreement would violate terms of the agreement — specifically the 
confidentiality provision. 
Indeed, even notifying the victims about the agreement would 
presumably have violated the provision. Accordingly, from September 24, 2007 through at least 
June 2008 — a period of more than nine months -- the U.S Attorney's Office did not notify any of 
the victims of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. Epstein was well aware of this 
failure to notify the victims and, indeed, arranged for this failure to notify the victims. Id.; U.S. 
I0 
EFTA00185018

Case 9.0B-carn7/36-1KAIMI end 
2462-4Bntesat Rasd ktOD_SOdlitet ROMPI210130113agitatie (11242 
43 
Attorney's Correspondence at 270; Transcript of Hearing in this case on July H, 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 
(doc. #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. 
and Jason 
met in person with Jane Doe #1. 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. 
11 
EFTA00185019

Case litglelem467364KAMI Carommrenet 3e32-4Entrakeheal EbSaSOdReta3V792//2.O42011BadeaVe deekif 
43 
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 #I. 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 
understood her own case was move forward towards possible prosecution. Tr. July 11, 2008, at 
4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29. 
23. On about November 27, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff 
sent an e-mail to 
Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein. The e-mail stated that the U.S. Attorney's Office 
had an obligation to notify the victims 
' 
12 
EFTA00185020

Case affie-ca-83736411MII latanumment ge2 -denten* mad bbSILMIRetD2VDPI29312O3Bagita*C1f442 
43 
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 Leflcowitz, defense counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The notification letter 
would have explained: 
that Epstein would 
The letter then would have gone on to explain 
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 
EFTA00185021

• c
 St.-115Altfl 
Datamtronit 382-4EntEnetheal FicSEILEMEtetlaNDIMA011Bagita§t ClEAGif 
43 
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. 
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 th 
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 
EFTA00185022

Case 20B-eavar364(1411 DIICUMMDMIt 3162-zEntapilemal 513,911SedbletD&IMID1201Bagitatfidfaa 
43 
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 
that 
The letter also recounted 
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 
EFTA00185023