EFTA00185206

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 29 of 57 
86. On about December 6, 2007, Sloman sent a letter to Lefkowitz again recognizing the 
rights of the victims, and also recognizing that the victims had not yet been afforded any rights, 
despite the fact that the NPA was signed months earlier. The letter stated: 
[E]ach of the listed individuals are persons whom the Office identified as victims. 
[T]he Office is prepared to indict Mr. Epstein based upon Mr. Epstein's 
'interactions' with these individuals. This conclusion is based upon a thorough 
and proper investigation - one in which none of the victims was informed of any 
right to receive damages of any amount prior to the investigation of her claim. 
[T]he Office can say, without hesitation, that the evidence demonstrates that each 
person on the list was a victim of Mr. Epstein's criminal behavior. 
Finally, let me address your objections to the draft Victim Notification Letter. 
You write that you don't understand the basis for the Office's belief that it is 
appropriate to notify the victims. Pursuant to the 'Justice for All Act of 2004,' 
crime victims are entitled to: 'The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice 
of any public court proceeding ... involving the crime' and the 'right not to be 
excluded from any such public court proceeding....' 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) & 
(3). Section 3771 also commands that 'employees of the Department of Justice .. 
. engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their 
best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights 
described in subsection (a).' 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1).... 
With respect to notification of the other information that we propose to disclose, 
the statute requires that we provide a victim with the earliest possible notice of: 
the status of the investigation, the filing of charges against a suspected offender, 
and the acceptance of a plea. 42 U.S.C. 10607(c)(3). Just as in 18 U.S.C. 3771, 
these sections are not limited to proceedings in a federal district court. Our Non-
Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein 
to plead to a state offense. The victims identified through the federal investigation 
should be appropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not 
require the U.S. Attorney's Office to forego its legal obligations. 
[T]he Office believes that it has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that each listed 
individual was a victim of Mr. Epstein's criminal conduct while the victim was a 
minor. The law requires us to treat all victims "with fairness and with respect for 
the victim's dignity and privacy." 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(8).1° 
10° US_Atty_Cor. 190-193 (Exhibit 88) (emphasis added). 
29 
EFTA00185486

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 30 of 57 
The letter included a footnote stating: "Unlike the State's investigation, the federal investigation 
shows criminal conduct by Mr. Epstein at least as early as 2001, so all of the victims were 
minors at the time of the offense."1°I
87. On December 7, 2007, defense attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez sent a letter to AUSA 
Sloman, requesting "that the Office hold off on sending any victim notification letters." The 
Government complied.102
88. While discussing with defense counsel changes in the October 2007 Addendum and in 
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 to the NPA. 
89. On December 13, 2007, the line prosecutor sent a letter to Lefkowitz confirming that 
the Government had earlier stopped making victim notifications because of objections from 
Epstein's criminal defense counsel: "You raised objections to any victim notification, and no 
further notifications were done."103 The December 13, 2007 letter reveals it would have been 
possible to confer with victims about the NPA. The U.S. Attorney's Office was able to confer 
constantly with Epstein's counsel about the parameters of the NPA, but intentionally declined to 
confer with Epstein's victims about the Agreement.101
90. On December 19, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta sent a letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez 
stating, "I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of time and place 
of Mr. Epstein's state court sentencing hearing. We intend to provide victims with notice of the 
01 RFP WPB 000620 (Exhibit 89). 
102 RFP WPB 001557 (Exhibit 90). 
100 Exhibit 24; Exhibit 69; RFP MM 00469 (Exhibit 91). 
KA Id.
30 
EFTA00185487

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 31 of 57 
federal resolution, as required by law. We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney 
regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notices of the state proceedings.105
91. In about early January 2008, as the result of pressure from Epstein's attorneys, Acosta 
agreed with Epstein's attorneys "that there were significant irregularities with the deferred 
prosecution agreement" and "called a time-out." 
At that time, Acosta asked the Child 
Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, located in 
Washington, D.C., to look at the case.l°6
CONCEALING THE NPA WHILE EPSTEIN SOUGHT REVIEW 
92. Following the entry of the "time out," any requirement that Epstein carry out his 
obligations under the NPA was delayed while he sought higher level review within the Justice 
Department. During this review, the victims were not told about the existence of the NPA.107
93. On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 received victim notification letters 
from the FBI advising them that `Tiflis case is currently under investigation. This can be a 
lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough 
investigation.' 
94. The January 10, 2008, notification letter did not disclose that the federal cases in the 
Southern District of Florida involving Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 were the subject of the NPA 
US_Atty_Cor. 00272-00273 (Exhibit 92); RFP MIA 000038.000040 (Exhibit 93); RFP MIA 00041-00047 
(Exhibit 94); RFP MIA 000048-000052 (Exhibit 95). 
106 Exhibit 91 (email from Lefkowitz to Acosta, dated February 29, 2008, and noting that it had been nearly two 
months since the "time out" agreement). 
107 Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; RFP WPB 001616-001623 (Exhibit 96); Exhibit 63 at 4-5, 18-19, 22-29. 
108 January 10, 2008 Victim Notification Letter to Jane Doe I (Exhibit 97) (emphasis added); January 10, 2008 
Victim Notification Letter to Jane Doe 2 (Exhibit 98). 
31 
EFTA00185488

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 32 of 57 
entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed previously, or that there had 
been any potentially binding resolution.109
95. On about January 10, 2008, other victims similarly-situated to Jane Doe I and Jane 
Doe 2 received letters identical in substance to those described in the immediately preceding 
paragraphs.' 10
96. In early 2008, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 believed that criminal prosecution of 
Epstein was extremely important. They also desired to be consulted by the FBI or other 
representatives of the Federal Government about the prosecution of Epstein. In light of the 
letters that they had received around January 10, 2008, they reasonably believed, as was 
obviously intended by the letters, that a federal criminal investigation of Epstein was on-going—
including investigation into Epstein's crimes against them. They also reasonably believed that 
they would be contacted by and have an opportunity to confer with federal prosecutors before the 
Federal Government reached any final resolution of that investigation." 
97. On January 31, 2008, Jane Doe I met with FBI Agents and AUSA's from the U.S. 
Attorney's Office. She provided additional details of Epstein's sexual abuse of her. The 
AUSA's did not disclose to Jane Doe I at this meeting that they had already negotiated a NPA 
with Epstein.' 12
98. On March 19, 2008, the line prosecutor sent a lengthy email to a prospective pro bono 
attorney for one of Epstein's victims who had been subpoenaed to appear at a deposition. The 
109 Id. 
II° Exhibit 63 at 4.5, 18.19, 22-29. 
III Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18.19, 22-23, 28-29; Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27. 
" 2 Exhibit 33. 
32 
EFTA00185489

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 33 of 57 
email listed the attorneys representing Epstein, the targets of the investigation, and recounted in 
detail the investigation that had been conducted to that point. The email did not reveal the fact 
that Epstein had signed the NPA in September 2007.113
99. On May 30, 2008, Jane Doe 5 (another client of the undersigned), who was recognized 
as an Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her 
that "[Ibis case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request 
your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation."11" The statement in the 
notification letter was misleading. The letter did not disclose the NPA already entered into by 
Epstein and the Office, and instead implied that the Office was still investigating Epstein and had 
not decided how to proceed with the case, neither of which was accurate.115
100. The May 30, 2008, victim letter to Jane Doe 5 also acknowledged the victims' rights 
under the CVRA at the same time as the Office was not disclosing the NPA's existence to Jane 
Doe 5 and the other victiim."6
101. In mid-June 2008, Mr. Edwards contacted the line 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, consistent with his clients' desires. The 
line prosecutor and Mr. Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed in the 
I" Exhibit 40. 
" 4 Exhibit 29. 
1" Id. 
116 Exhibit 28; Exhibit 62. 
33 
EFTA00185490

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 34 of 57 
future. Mr. Edwards was lead to believe federal charges could still be filed, with no mention 
whatsoever of the existence of the NPA or any other possible resolution to the case. 117
102. At the end of the call, the line prosecutor asked Mr. Edwards to send any information 
that he wanted considered by the Office in determining whether to file federal charges. Because 
of the confidentiality provision that existed in the plea agreement, the line prosecutor did not 
inform Mr. Edwards that months earlier, in September 2007, the Office had reached an 
agreement not to file federal charges. The line prosecutor also did not inform Mr. Edwards that 
resolution of the criminal matter was imminent."8
103. On June 19, 2008, Mr. Edwards sent an email to the line prosecutor requesting to 
meet in person to confer with the Government regarding the status of his clients' case.119
104. Because the line prosecutor did not tell Mr. Edwards about the NPA, Mr. Edwards 
was not able to confer with the prosecutor about the NM on behalf of his clients. Mr. Edwards, 
however, made it perfectly clear that his clients wanted to confer with the prosecutor before any 
resolution was reached. Epstein was aware of this continued concealment of the NPA from the 
victims and, indeed, sought this concealment.120
105. On June 23, 2008, the line prosecutor sent an email to Leflcowitz stating that the 
Deputy Attorney General had completed his review of the Epstein matter and "determined that 
federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein's case twais appropriate. Accordingly, Mr. Epstein ha[d] until 
Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29; Exhibit 64 at 5-6. 
u° Id; US_Atty_Cor. 0321 (Exhibit 99). 
119 RFP WPB 001894 (Exhibit 100). 
110 Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29; Exhibit 64 at 5-6; Exhibit 99. 
34 
EFTA00185491

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 35 of 57 
the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the terms and conditions of the 
agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein."I21
EPSTEIN'S ENTRY OF HIS GUILTY PLEA 
106. On and before June 30, 2008, the Government and Epstein's attorneys corresponded 
extensively (often multiple times on any given day) regarding Epstein's entry of his guilty plea. 
Throughout the course of these communications, the Government and Epstein operated on the 
agreement that the victims would not be told about the NPA, much less about the fact that 
Epstein's plea was a triggering event for the federal case being resolved.'22
107. On about June 27, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office called Mr. Edwards to provide 
notice to his clients regarding the impending Monday morning hearing. The notice, however, 
was only that Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges involving 
other victims—not Mr. Edwards' clients nor any of the federally-identified victims. The U.S. 
Attorney's Office did not tell Mr. Edwards that the guilty pleas in state court would bring an end 
to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement.123
108. In fact, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not disclose to Edwards the fact that the guilty 
pleas in state court had any bearing on the cases of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. As a result, Jane 
Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 did not attend the plea hearing.124
121 Exhibit 40. 
In Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; RFP WPB 000512-000513 
(Exhibit 101). 
123 Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 44, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 101. 
124 Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4.6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 101; Declaration of Brad 
Edwards (Exhibit 102). 
35 
EFTA00185492

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 36 of 57 
109. Had they known that the plea agreement in state court made it impossible to prosecute 
Epstein federally for his crimes against them, they would have objected to this resolution and 
would have certainly attended the hearing.'" 
110. On or before June 30, 2008, the Office prepared a draft victim notification to be sent 
to the victims—a letter that it intended to show to both Epstein and Jack Goldberger, as reflected 
by a place for the initials of both Epstein and Goldberger on the document. The notification was 
designed to inform the victims of the provisions of deferral of federal prosecution in favor of 
state charges. The notification letter began by describing Epstein's guilty plea in the past tense: 
"On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein ... entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida statutes 
forbidding the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution and felony solicitation of 
prostitution." Later, a substantively identical letter was prepared for Epstein's and Guy Lewis' 
review. 126
111. On June 30, 2008, the Office sent an e-mail to Goldberger reflecting continuing 
efforts to keep the NPA secret: "Jack: The FBI has received several calls regarding the Non-
Prosecution Agreement. I do not know whether the title of the document was disclosed when the 
Agreement was filed under seal, but the FBI and our office are declining comment if asked."1" 
112. On June 30, 2008, Epstein plead guilty to state law solicitation of prostitution charges. 
Because the Federal Government failed to notify the victims about the NPA or its arrangements 
with Epstein, neither Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 5, nor any of the identified victims in the 
in  Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 101; Exhibit 102. 
136 us_Atty_cor. 00323 (Exhibit 103); RFP WPB 000515.000520 (Exhibit 104). 
127 Exhibit 99. 
36 
EFTA00185493

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 37 of 57 
federal case were aware of the ramifications of the state proceeding (either in person or through 
counsel)."8
113. Immediately following the June 30, 2008 hearing, the line prosecutor told one of the 
victims' attorneys that Epstein had "plead guilty today in state coutt."129
114. On June 30, 2008, based on what she had been told by the Government, Jane Doe I 
thought that the Office was still investigating and pursuing her case. She did not receive notice 
that Epstein's state guilty plea affected her rights in any way. If she had been told that the state 
plea had some connection to blocking the prosecution of her case, she would have attended and 
tried to object to the judge to prevent that plea from going forward.'" 
115. On June 30, 2008, based on what she and her attorneys had been told by the 
Government, Jane Doe 2 thought that the Government was still investigating her case. If she had 
been told that the state plea had some connection to blocking the prosecution of her case, she 
would have tried to confer with the prosecutors about it and tried to get charges filed. She 
wanted to be treated fairly in the process."' 
116. From September 24, 2007, the date that the NPA was signed, through at least the state 
court plea on June 30, 2008—a period of more than nine months—the Office did not notify any 
of Epstein's victims about the existence of the NPA.132
In Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 64 at 6; 000001-000002 (Exhibit 105). 
19 Ft.FP WPB 001861 (Exhibit 106). 
170 Exhibit 26; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23. 
lal Exhibit 27; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 105. 
173 Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28.29; Exhibit 64 at 4; USAtty_Cor. 00267-00271 (Exhibit 107). 
37 
EFTA00185494

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 38 of 57 
117. On July 1, 2008, the day following Epstein's plea, the line prosecutor emailed the 
Assistant State Attorney a copy of the NPA for "filing with the Court under seal" demonstrating 
that the agreement continued to be withheld from the victims.133
118. On July 3, 2008, as specifically directed by the U.S. Attorney's Office, Mr. Edwards 
sent a letter to the Office communicating the wishes of Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 5 
that federal charges be filed against Epstein: "We urge the Attorney General and our United 
States Attorney to consider the fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal 
laws. We urge you to move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution 
commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the 
steps necessary to protect our children from this very dangerous sexual predator."134
119. When Mr. Edwards wrote his July 3, 2008 letter, he was still unaware that a NPA had 
been reached with Epstein and that there was any federal resolution of the case-facts that the 
Office continued to conceal, at the request of Epstein, not only from Edwards but also as his 
clients and other victims.133
120. On July 7, 2008, the line prosecutor again conferred with Epstein's counsel seeking 
permission to begin distributing the notification letters to the victims, acknowledging her failure 
to include one victim who was still a minor in 2008.136
121. Mr. Edwards first saw a reference to the NPA on or after July 9, 2008, when the 
Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe's emergency petition. That pleading was 
13 RFP WPB 001857 (Exhibit 108). 
" 4 Exhibit 105. 
"5 Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29; Exhibit 99; RFP WPB 001855 (Exhibit 109); [DE 48] (Exhibit 110) at 
18-19. 
136 RFP WPB 001854 (Exhibit III). 
38 
EFTA00185495

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 39 of 57 
the first public mention of the NPA and the first disclosure to Mr. Edwards—and thus to Jane 
Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doc 5—of the possible existence of a NPA.137
122. Mr. Edwards detrimentally relied on the misleading representations made by the 
Office that the case was still under investigation when he was writing his July 3, 2008 letter. He 
would not have wasted his time undertaking a pointless exercise had he known that the U.S. 
Attorney's Office had previously negotiated a NPA, and he would have informed his clients 
about the agreement.' 38
A MOTIVE TO CONCEAL THE NPA FROM THE VICTIMS 
123. 
e U.S. Attorney's Office—pushed by Epstein—wanted the NPA kept from public 
view because of the strong objection it would have faced from victims of Epstein's abuse, and 
because of the 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 
wi 
a county court jail sentence.139
hen deciding whether to notify the victims before Epstein entered his guilty plea, 
the Office was aware that a state court judge would have to review the plea and determine 
whether it was in the public interest, and accordingly chose not to "highlight" certain potentially 
objectionable features.'4° 
11 Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4.6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 110 at 18.19. 
138 See Exhibit 28; Exhibit 102; Exhibit 105. 
I" Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 101; Exhibit 102; Exhibit 
57 (urging Government to try and keep agreement from becoming public); Exhibit 7 (explaining Government's 
desire not to "highlight" possible charges or defendants bcing immunized). 
39 
EFTA00185496

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 40 of 57 
oncealing the NPA from the victims prevented them from using their right to confer 
with the Government about why the NPA was not desirable or appearing at Epstein's plea and 
sentencing hearing to raise their concerns with the Court.14' 
THE VICTIMS' UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO ENFORCE THEIR RIGHTS 
126. On July 7, 2008, Jane Doe I filed an emergency petition for enforcement of her rights 
under the CVRA. At the time, Jane Doe I was not aware of the NPA, so she sought a court order 
directing the Government to confer with her before reaching any such agreement. Epstein 
quickly became aware of this petition.142
127. On July 8, 2008, the line prosecutor sent a letter to Epstein's counsel. stating that 
victims would be informed about the civil compensation provision of the NPA the next day: 
In accordance with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, on June 30, 
2008, the United States Attorney's Office provided you with a list of thirty-one 
individuals "whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an 
enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein." . . In deference to your vacation, we 
allowed you a week to provide us with any objections or requested modifications 
of the list and/or the Notification language. 
Yesterday, I contacted you via 
telephone and e-mail, but received no response. Accordingly, the United States 
hereby notifies you that it will distribute the victim notifications tomorrow, July 9, 
2008, to each of the thirty-two identified victims, either directly or via their 
counsel.143
128. On July 9, 2008, Jack Goldberger sent a letter to the line prosecutor raising concerns 
about the notifications, and suggesting modifications to the notification letter. Epstein's counsel 
also objected to the victim notification letters containing certain information about the NPA.144
141 18 U.S.C. § 3771; Exhibit 26; see also Exhibit 62. 
1°2 [DE I] (Exhibit 112) at 1-2. 
1d3 Exhibit 101. 
144 RFP WPB 000524-000525 (Exhibit 113). 
40 
EFTA00185497

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 41 of 57 
129. Later on July 9, 2008, the line prosecutor sent a response back to Goldberger, 
explaining how she intended to keep the victims from having access to the terms of the NPA: 
Without such an express Acknowledgment by Mr. Epstein that the notice contains 
the substance of that Agreement, I believe that the victims will have justification 
to petition for the entire agreement, which is contrary to the confidentiality clause 
that the parties have signed."4s 
130. On July 9, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent victim notification letters to Jane 
Doe I and Jane Doe 5, via their attorney, Mr. Edwards, and to other identified victims of Epstein. 
That notification contained a written explanation of some of the civil compensation provisions of 
the NPA. The notification did not provide the full terms of the NPA. For example, the 
notification did not disclose the NPA or the immunity for "other potential co-conspirators" of 
Epstein.'46
131. On July 10, 2008, Epstein's counsel continued to protest victim notification as 
evidenced by Goldberger's email to the line prosecutor stating, "we respectfully request a 
reasonable opportunity to review and comment on a draft of the modified notification letter you 
intend to mail before you send it.s147
132. On July I 1, 2008, the Court held a hearing on Jane Doe I's petition and, with the 
stipulation of the Government, added Jane Doe 2 as a petitioner because she was a recognized 
crime "victim." The Court unsealed a declaration that the line prosecutor had filed in response to 
the petition, and because the declaration contained one paragraph of the NPA, that paragraph 
RFP WPB 000526-000527 (Exhibit 114). 
1" 000777-000779 (Exhibit 115); 000774-000776 (Exhibit 116). 
RFP WPB 000535-000537 (Exhibit 117). 
41 
EFTA00185498

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 42 of 57 
became unsealed. 
The line prosecutor sent an email to Goldberger informing him of the 
unsealing of that one paragraph.'" 
133. During the July 11, 2008 hearing, the Government conceded that the NPA had been 
concluded months before the victims were notified about it.149
134. Throughout July 2008, Epstein's attorneys and the Government continued to 
correspond about issues such as subpoenas related to his computers and returning of his 
property.' 5o
135. On August 7, 2008, the line prosecutor emailed one of Epstein's defense attorneys, 
Roy Black, notice of the motion to disclose the NPA to the victims and assured him that the 
Government intended "to oppose the motion based upon the confidentiality provision."151
136. On August 10, 2008, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 filed a motion seeking release of the 
NPA.' 52
137. linmediately after the motion was filed, the Office coordinated with another Epstein 
attorney about how to best object to the motion.153
138. On August II, 2008, Roy Black wrote back to the line prosecutor, thanking the 
Government for "agreeing to oppose any disclosure of the 9/24/07 agreement."1M 
RFP WPB 001845 (Exhibit 118). 
19 See Exhibit 63 at 12 (". . . the agreement was consummated by the parties in December of 2007."); see also 
Exhibit 62. 
150 RFP WPB 000470-000471 (Exhibit 119); REP WPB 000481-000489 (Exhibit 120); RFP WPB 000547 (Exhibit 
121). 
Is' [DE 19] (Exhibit 122); RFP WPB 001825 (Exhibit 123). 
152 Exhibit 122. 
153 RFP WPB 001820-001838 (Exhibit 124). 
1$4 RFP WPB 001819 (Exhibit 125). 
42 
EFTA00185499

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 43 of 57 
139. Between August 11 and 14, 2008, the line prosecutor attempted to obtain a copy of 
the NPA that Epstein's counsel had filed in state court.155 After receiving a copy, on August 14, 
2008, the line prosecutor wrote to Lefkowitz: "I can no longer argue that the Court shouldn't 
force us to produce the agreement because we have already provided the victims with the 
relevant portion when I now understand from you that I have NOT provided them with the 
relevant portion."' 56
140. Further communications ensued between the line prosecutor and Epstein's counsel 
about what exactly was contained in the NPA—specifically, whether a December modification 
to the agreement was part of the NPA. The notification to the victims about the civil restitution 
provisions had quoted from the December language.157
141. On August 14, 2008, the line prosecutor emailed Epstein's counsel stating that the 
court has "ordered us to make the Agreement available to the plaintiffs."' 
142. On August 15, 2008, the line prosecutor sent a letter to Epstein's counsel confirming 
that recent correspondence was intended "solely to determine what Mr. Epstein considered to be 
the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement" so that the Government would know exactly what 
needed to be produced to the victims in this CVRA case.'59
143. On August 18, 2008, Lefkowitz wrote the line prosecutor that Epstein objected to 
disclosure of the terms of the NPA, but that Epstein would "cooperate with the government to 
reach an agreement as to substance of the notification to be sent to the government's list of 
ISS RFP WPB 001809-001818 (Exhibit 126). 
156 RFP WPB 001804 (Exhibit 127). 
131 RFP WPB 001805.001808 (Exhibit 128). 
158 RFP WPB 001798 (Exhibit 129). 
Exhibit 68; RFP WPB 000575-000576 (Exhibit 130). 
43 
EFTA00185500

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 44 of 57 
individuals. Based on the Agreement, the information contained in the notification should be 
limited to (1) the language provided in the Agreement dealing with civil restitution (paragraphs 
7-10) and (2) the contact information of the selected attorney representative. We object to the 
inclusion of additional information about the investigation of Mr. Epstein, the terms of the 
Agreement other than paragraphs 7-10 and the identity of other identified individuals." 160
144. On August 21, 2008, the Government sent a letter to Epstein's counsel stating that, 
"[c]opies of the victim notifications will continue to be provided to counsel for Mr. Epstein." 
The letter further requested substantive objections to the draft notification letters, which were 
being re-sent "[b]ecause I previously provided the victims with incorrect information—albeit 
with the approval of Mr. Epstein's counsel—it is imperative that I correct the error promptly."'" 
145. On August 26, 2008, the Government sent another letter to Epstein's counsel stating, 
"Mr. Goldberger and Mr. Tein explicitly approved the language in my earlier victim notification 
letter, even though they apparently were taking the position that the December 19, 2007 letter 
was not part of the Agreement, so that misinformation was provided to the victims with the 
approval of Mr. Epstein's attorneys."162
( 
146. Jane Doe I and Jane Doc 2 were not informed of the contents of the NPA until 
August 28, 2008, when the line prosecutor provided a copy to Mr. Edwards.163
147. On September 2, 2008, nearly a year after the NPA was signed, the line prosecutor 
sent an email to Epstein's counsel stating, "I will start sending out the victim notifications today. 
160 RFP W113 000581-000583 (Exhibit 131). 
RFP WPB 000587-000588 (Exhibit 132). 
162 RFP WPB 000603.000604 (Exhibit 133) (emphasis in original). 
16) RFP WPB 001776 (Exhibit 134). 
44 
EFTA00185501

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 45 of 57 
In accordance with your request, I have changed the language regarding the victims' right to 
receive a copy of the Agreement.' 
148. On September 2 and 3, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent to Jane Doe I and other 
identified victims amended notification letters correcting the earlier inaccurate information about 
the civil compensation provisions contained in the earlier notifications.165
149. The victim notification letters that the victims received were confusing. They did not 
directly state that Epstein's crimes against them were not going to be prosecuted, but instead said
that "the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state prosecution." 
The letter did not inform the victims of how this applied to them. '66 
150. The victim notification letters also state that there was "litigation between the United 
States and two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement between the United 
States and Mr. Epstein." The letters did not explain that the remedy being sought in the litigation 
was not just to get "disclosure" of the agreement, but instead to uphold the rights of Epstein's 
v ictims.I67
151. On September 16, 2008, the Palm Beach Daily News wrote the State Attorney's 
Office that it had "recently discovered" the NPA and wanted to know what was in it. The State 
Attorney's Office wrote the line prosecutor inquiring how to respond.'68
152. On September 16, 2008, attorney Jeffrey Herman, who represented several Epstein 
victims, wrote to the line prosecutor to strenuously object to the restitution procedures 
161 REP WPB 001775 (Exhibit 135). 
165 September 3, 2008 Victim Notification Letter to Jane Doe I (Exhibit 136); Exhibit 2; Exhibit 94 at 2-3. 
Iba Id.; Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27. 
167 ki 
168 002343.002344 (Exhibit 137). 
45 
EFTA00185502

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 46 of 57 
established in the NPA after learning that another attorney established through the NPA would 
be making unsolicited contacts to the victims. Mr. Herman explained that the notification letters 
were "misleading" because they referred generally to a waiver of "any other claim for damages" 
without informing them that this waiver might include a valuable punitive damages claim against 
an alleged billionaire.169
153. On September 17, 2008, the line prosecutor sent an email to State Attorney 
, explaining that the NPA "contain[ed] a confidentiality provision that require[ed] us to 
inform Mr. Epstein's counsel before making any disclosure.s170
154. On September 18, 2008, attorney Katherine Ezell representing some of Epstein's 
victims emailed the line prosecutor, asking whether the NPA was "blessed" by Judge Marra. 
The line prosecutor emailed back: "As far as I know, Judge Man has not ever seen the 
agreement or these notification letters.... 1 don't know if the sentencing judge ever reviewed it. 
The letters were reviewed by my office and Jay Lefkowitz and Roy Black before they went 
out."" 
155. In 2010, Jane Doe I met with the new U.S. Attorney, Wilfredo Ferrer. She explained 
to him how the NPA had been concealed from her. Nothing ever came of the meeting, and Mr. 
Ferrer has continued to fight efforts by Jane Doe I and other victims to have the court declare 
that their rights were violated while the NPA was drafted and implemented.' 
169 id
Im REP WPB 001773 (Exhibit 138). 
In RFP WPB 001763 (Exhibit 139). 
In  Exhibit 26; Tr. Nov. 23, 2015 (Exhibit 140) at 3-5 (U.S. Attorney's Office argues that the victims are "complicit" 
in their own sexual abuse and therefore cannot receive any remedy under the CVRA). 
46 
EFTA00185503

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 47 of 57 
( 
156. At all times material to this statement of facts, it would have been practical and 
feasible for the federal government to inform Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Ms. 
, Jane Doc 5, 
and all other similarly-situated victims of the details of the proposed NPA with Epstein, 
including in particular the fact that the agreement barred any federal criminal prosecution of 
crimes that Epstein committed against thcm.'" 
157. At no time while it negotiated and executed the NPA did the Government notify the 
victims that Epstein's guilty plea would prevent his prosecutions for crimes against them. Nor 
did the Government ever allow the identified victims to "confer with the prosecutor on the case," 
18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5), or "treat them with fairness, respect and dignity" by making them aware 
of the NPA, § 3771(a)(8). In fact, to the contrary, the Government went to great lengths to 
conceal the fact that there was a federal resolution at all and mislead the victims into believing 
that the federal case was proceeding so that the NPA could be secretly put in place before the 
victims knew what was going on.170
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 
INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW 
In light of the foregoing undisputed material facts, summary judgment for the victims on 
the issue of whether their CVRA rights were violated is appropriate. The Court is well aware of 
the applicable summary judgment standard, which requires that there be no disputed issues that 
are genuine or material for the moving party to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, 
e.g., Joseph'. Napolilano, 839 F. Supp. 2d 1324, 1333 (S.D. Fla. 2012). The undisputed facts 
"3 See Exhibit 88. 
"4 Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18.19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 101; Exhibit 102; Exhibit 
57; Exhibit 7. 
47 
EFTA00185504

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 48 of 57 
here plainly establish that the Government—with the knowledge of, and at the urging of 
Epstein—violated the CVRA rights of Jane Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly-situated 
victims, by deliberately concealing from them the NPA barring the prosecution of Jeffrey 
Epstein and his co-conspirators for the federal offenses they committed against them. In 
particular, the Government violated the victims' right to confer with prosecutors, right to 
accurate notice of court hearings, and right to be treated with fairness. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5), 
(2), & (8). 
A. 
The Government Violated the Victims' Right to Confer. 
There can be no real debate that the Government violated the victims' right to confer. 
Indeed, it is worth recalling that in earlier proceedings, the victims filed a similar (although less 
detailed) motion for summary judgment. DE 48. The Government responded not by claiming 
that it had in fact conferred with the victims, but rather by advancing the legal argument that the 
CVRA does not extend any rights to victims before the filing of an indictment. DE 62. This 
argument was flatly contradicted by the Government's own earlier decision to provide 
notification to victims after the NPA was signed — and even during the investigation treating 
them as victims. See, e.g., ¶¶ 10-16, 34-35, 69-73, 91-94, 98, 125, supra. In any event, this 
Court has now firmly rejected the Government's contrived legal position. DE 99 (the court has 
determined "that as a matter of law the CVRA can apply before formal charges are filed").175
I 73 Not only has this Court rejected the Government's position, but Congress and the President have specifically 
decided to end any debate and to codify this Court's ruling into federal law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX9) (victims 
have the "right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement") (added as 
part of Pub. L. 114-22, Title I, § I13(a), (eX1) (May 29, 2015)). This codification builds on the fact that Senator 
Kyl, the Senate co-sponsor of the CVRA, took to the Senate floor to directly express his approval of this Court's 
ruling. 157 Cong. Rec. S7060.0I (statement of Senator Kyl) (Nov. 2, 201 I) (applauding this Court's decision and 
48 
EFTA00185505