EFTA00206173

federal requirements that arise from the prior proceedings in Palm Beach. There are no pending civil 
lawsuits. There are not and should not be any pending criminal investigations, given Mr. Epstein's 
complete fulfillment of all the terms of his non-prosecution agreement with the federal government." 
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/hedge-funder-joseph-epstein-investigated-for-child-
trafficking-2010-7#ixzz1FxAJrd Fa 
From: 
(USAFLS)<
> 
Sent: 
Monday, March 07, 2011 11:55 AM 
To: 
Jon Swaine 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Daily Telegraph of London 
Thanks for the email. 
Unfortunately, the USAO has no comment. Thanks for checking with us. 
Take care, 
From: Jon Swaine [mailto: 
Sent: Monc
March 07, 2011 11:50 AM 
To: 
, 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Re: Daily Telegraph of London 
I'm looking at the case of Jeffrey Epstein, who was imprisoned for two sex offence felonies in 2008, 
after coming to a plea deal with the US Attorney. 
I'd like to know whether any representations were made to the US Attorney's office by associates of Mr 
Epstein - not including his lawyers. 
I'm particularly keen to know whether any contact was made by Prince 
of Britain, former 
President Clinton or former Governor of Mexico Bill Richardson. 
Thanks and best wishes 
EFTA00206273

Jon 
On 7 March 2011 11:36, 
Hi Jon. 
What do you need? Not at my desk. 
Thanks 
From: Jon Swaine [mailto: 
Sent: Monc
March 07, 2011 11:36 AM 
To: 
,M 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Daily Telegraph of London 
(USAFLS) 
> wrote: 
Dear 
Please could I speak to you about an urgent media inquiry? 
Many thanks 
Jon Swaine 
The Dail Tele ra h of London 
Mobile: (+1),MI 
Office: (+1) 
The Dail Tele ra h of London 
Mobile: (+1) 
EFTA00206274

Office: (+1) 
From: 
Paul Cassell ‹
> 
Sent: 
Monday, March 07, 2011 5:33 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Cc: 
Brad Edwards 
Subject: 
Motion to Make Our Pleading Available to the Public - Government Position 
Dear 
and 
We are writing to inquire about the government's position on a motion that we will be filing on March 
18 along with our "summary judgment" motion. As you know, the summary judgment motion will 
contain quotations from e-mails that are under the magistrate judge's order requiring prior notice to the 
court before they are disclosed. Accordingly, on March 18, we will be filing a full, unredacted summary 
judgment motion under seal with Judge Marra and, for the public PACER file, a summary judgment 
motion with quotations from the e-mails redacted. 
We will be filing simultaneously a motion for with the court for unsealing of the unredacted motion. We 
will provide (at least) three ground for unsealing. First, the confidentiality order was only based on an 
agreement to give advance notice to Epstein before using materials. Once advance notice has been 
given, there is no basis for confidentiality. Second, there is truly world-wide interest in the handling of 
the Epstein prosecution, and so our pleading should not remain under seal — instead the public should 
have access to it so that they can assess how this case was handled. Third, keeping the pleading 
under seal complicates the ability of Jane Does' attorneys to consult with victims' rights specialist 
about how best to proceed in the case. 
We are writing to determine the Government's position on our motion to unseal the redacted pleading 
so that we can include that position in our motion. We hope that you will not oppose the motion, which 
might produce the need for further litigation. As you know, Judge Marra has promptly unsealed other 
pleadings in this matter when the Government tried to object. 
Sincerely, 
Paul Cassell 
Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 
EFTA00206275

Paul G. Cassell 
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law 
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 
Voice: 
Fax: 
Email: 
http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/defaultasp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul 
CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This 
message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the 
person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or 
copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the 
sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
From: 
. (FBI) 
Sent: 
Friday, March 04, 2011 4:44 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Re: Jeffrey Epstein 
Call my cell. 
 
 Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
. (USAFLS) 
To: 
Sent: Fri Mar 04 16:04:55 2011 
Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epsteinl 
Can you please call me about this? I am at my desk. 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
 
Original Message 
From: =. 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 3:56 PM 
To: 
EFTA00206276

Cc: 
(USAFLia 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein 
HI Nick. 
Thank you for your email. This is always the best 
blackberry on me. 
As to your question, I will not be able to help you. 
or on our intention to open or close a matter. 
Sorry 
Thanks 
From: 
[mailto: 
Sent: FridAy,i‘Aarch 04, 2011 3:16 PM 
To: =.= 
(USAFLiSil 
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear 
way to get me. I am hardly ever at my desk, but always have my 
We cannot comment, confirm or deny the existence of any investigation 
I work for the Mail on Sunday newspaper in London, En land. The Mail on 
Sunday last week published an interview with 
about her 
time working for Jeffrey Epstein. We plan to publish more revelations this 
week. 
I have been led to believe that the FBI is interested in pursuing the 
allegations published in the Mail on Sunday - and that Epstein may have 
committed offences not covered by the non prosecution agreement. 
Can you give me any guidance as to whether my information is correct? 
You may contact me by email or on 
Regards, 
Nick Pryer 
Assistant Features Editor 
Mail on Sunday 
This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee 
only. It contains information which may be confidential and legally 
privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named 
addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or 
use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please 
notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please 
be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not 
reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of 
its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free 
from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments 
to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus 
which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other 
e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully 
carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. 
Associated News a ers Ltd. Registered Office: 
This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be 
confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to 
EFTA00206277

receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify 
the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in 
this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. 
We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any 
attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of 
this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent 
abuse of these facilit! 
ies. 
Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: 
From: 
(FBI) 
Sent: 
Monday, March 07, 2011 9:42 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
Subject: 
Fw: FYI 
I'm sure u have heard! 
From: 
To: 
Cc: Longa, Waldo 
Sent: Mon Mar 07 02:56:29 2011 
Subject: FYI 
(FBI) 
- This is front page stuff today just wanted to let you know FYI. The Guardian, a London 
paper, is running articles and alluding to FBI reopening its case. 
Prince 
big mistake: Humiliated Duke 
of York vows to end friendship with billionaire 
paedophile 
• 
Duke now said to recognise friendship was 'unwise' 
• 
Former Scotland Yard royalty protection chief: 'Prince 
is bringing the royal family into 
disrepute' 
Mistake: The duke has cut ties with the disgraced billionaire 
Mistake: The duke has cut ties with the disgraced billionaire 
Prince 
has promised to sever his controversial links with child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 
EFTA00206278

The Duke of York has finally admitted that meeting the disgraced billionaire recently was 'unwise' and 
has ruled out further visits to the Florida mansion where Epstein sexually exploited underage girls. 
In a warning that may have come from the Queen, the duke's aides have advised him that his 
continued association with the paedophile risked damaging the reputation of the monarchy. 
Now the humiliated duke, the fourth in line to the throne, has backed down and cut ties with Epstein, 
58, in the hope that he can draw a line under the sordid association. 
An impeccably-placed source said yesterday: 'The duke recognises now that the meeting in December 
2010, after Epstein's conviction, was unwise.' 
It was not clear last night if 
, a UK trade envoy, has acted before fresh revelations about the 
friendship are made public. 
Earlier this week, in a rare move, his conduct was raised on the floor of the House of Commons. 
But, whatever the motivation, his decision to sever ties with an old friend is a tacit admission that he 
has got it wrong with his choice of friends. 
From: 
• (FBI) 
Sent: 
Sunday, March 06, 2011 6:37 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Re: Jeffrey Epstein 
Just what was in the email below. Nothing else. 
Ori inal Messa e 
From: 
. (USAFLS) < 
To: 
Sent: Fri Mar 04 16:04:55 2011 
Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein 
Can you please call me about this? I am at my desk. 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
Ori_girS Message 
From: =. 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Frida March 04, 2011 3:56 PM 
To: 
Cc: 
(USAFL 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein 
> 
HI Nick. 
EFTA00206279

Thank you for your email. This is always the best 
blackberry on me. 
way to get me. I am hardly ever at my desk, but always have my 
As to your question, I will not be able to help you. 
or on our intention to open or close a matter. 
Sorry 
Thanks 
 
Original Islessage 
From: 
[mailto: 
Sent: FridAyAlarch 04, 2011 3:16 PM 
To: =.= 
(USAFLiSi
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear 
We cannot comment, confirm or deny the existence of any investigation 
I work for the Mail on Sunday newspaper in London, En land. The Mail on 
Sunday last week published an interview with 
about her 
time working for Jeffrey Epstein. We plan to publish more revelations this 
week. 
I have been led to believe that the FBI is interested in pursuing the 
allegations published in the Mail on Sunday - and that Epstein may have 
committed offences not covered by the non prosecution agreement. 
Can you give me any guidance as to whether my information is correct? 
You may contact me by email or on 
Regards, 
Nick Pryer 
Assistant Features Editor 
Mail on Sunday 
This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee 
only. It contains information which may be confidential and legally 
privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named 
addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or 
use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please 
notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please 
be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not 
reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of 
its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free 
from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments 
to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus 
which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other 
e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully 
carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. 
Associated News a ers Ltd. Registered Office: 
This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be 
confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to 
receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify 
the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in 
this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. 
We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any 
EFTA00206280

attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of 
this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent 
abuse of these facilit! 
ies. 
Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Thursday, March 10, 2011 8:04 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Re: Epstein/Conf. Call 
If you get a chance, could you send me a copy of the agreement before today's meeting? 
Thanks, 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Tuesda , March 08. 2011 02:08 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Epstein/Conf. Call 
(USAFLS); 
I have a change of plea at 9:30 and then the Health Care Fraud Task Force meeting at 10:00. 
Could we start at 11:30? 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
(USAFLS); 
 
0ri inalAppointment 
From: 
(USAFLS) On Behalf Of 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:56 AM 
To: 
 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Epstein/Conf. Call 
EFTA00206281

When: Thursday, March 10 2011 10:00 AM-10:30 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). 
Where: 
Ofc. 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:53 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Can you please set up a meeting/conference call re: Epstein for Thursday morning with me, 
and 
Thanks. 
From: 
Ann 
Sent: 
Monday, March 14, 2011 12:29 AM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Cassell or Edwards commenting to press re Jane Doe suit 
Attachments: 
Duke of York to face fresh questions as Epstein case takes new twist - Telegraph.pdf.zip 
Thought you should see this and we should discuss. 
From: 
(USAFL5) c
> 
Sent: 
Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:54 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
. (USAFLS) 
Cc: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Latest Draft of Letter to Paul Cassel 
Attachments: 
Cassell Response Letter - rev5.wpd 
and 
(USAFLS); 
Attached is the latest draft of the letter that 
intends to send to Mr. Cassel. Could you please 
review the draft and let us know if you have any comments or concerns concerning this draft? 
would like to send the letter out today. 
Thanks, 
• 
From: 
(USAFLS) < 
Sent: 
Monday, March 07, 2011 5:55 PM 
EFTA00206282

To: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Jeffrey Epstein 
Today Show just called. No joke. They are doing a story how the case was reopened. I won't confirm 
anything. 
• 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda March 07, 2011 5:38 PM 
To: 
.(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein 
How many more incorrect statements can be printed99??? It is like one feeds off another that feeds 
off another. That woman at the Daily Beast is just making things up at this point. 
What is SMO, by the way? 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda March 07, 2011 5:28 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein 
See below. Is this your case? Obviously we will make no comment. 
EFTA00206283

From: 
(SMO) 
Sent: Monday March 07, 2011 5:25 PM 
To: 
.(USAFLS) 
Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein 
I believe 
is out. See below. 
From: 
(SMO) 
Sent: Mon
March 07, 2011 5:18 PM 
To: 
, 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein 
, Is your office handling this matter? A WSJ reporter is trying to get more information. 
The Justice Department is investigating Jeffrey Epstein for child trafficking, The Daily Beast 
has learned—and has widened the scope of its probe to include a famous modeling agency. 
Hedge-fund manager Jeffrey Epstein completed his sentence for soliciting prostitution with a minor last 
week. But it appears his problems may not be over. Now The Daily Beast has learned that: 
• Federal investigators continue to investigate Epstein's activities, to see whether there is 
evidence of child trafficking—a far more serious charge than the two in his non-prosecution 
agreement, the arrangement between Epstein and the Department of Justice allowing him to 
plead guilty to lower-level state crimes. Trafficking can carry a 20-year sentence. 
• The FBI is also investigating Epstein's friend Jean Luc Brunel, whose MC2 modeling agency 
appears to have been a source of girls from overseas who ended up on Epstein's private jets. 
Under the concept of double jeopardy, Epstein can no longer be prosecuted for any of the charges 
covered by his non-prosecution agreement, in which he agreed to serve a short term of incarceration, 
fund the civil suits of named victims, and register as a sex offender. The victims who accepted cash 
settlements in these civil suits agreed not to testify against him or speak publicly about the case. 
However, new evidence developed by the Department of Justice on other offenses not covered by the 
agreement, including allegations by additional victims who come forward, could lead to new charges. 
There is no statute of limitations in the federal sex-trafficking law, which was also enacted by the state 
of Florida in 2002. Because his predatory habits stretch back many years and involved dozens of 
young-looking girls, there may well be more evidence to uncover. (Several young women who claim to 
be Epstein victims have recently contacted a Ft. Lauderdale lawyer, but to date no new civil complaints 
have been filed.) 
These new developments come one week after the publication of two articles in The Daily Beast about 
Epstein's pattern of sexual contact with underage girls, which Palm Beach police began investigating 
in 2005 and the U.S. Attorney's office then settled in a 2007 plea deal. The first article quoted a 
EFTA00206284

deposition by then-Palm Beach Chief of Police Michael Reiter, in which he stated that Epstein, a 
billionaire with many powerful friends, had received special treatment in both his plea deal and the 
terms of his incarceration. Although federal investigators at one point produced a draft 53-page 
indictment against Epstein, he was eventually allowed to plead guilty to only two relatively minor state 
charges and receive a short term of incarceration: 13 months in the county jail, during which he went 
to the office every day, and one year of community control, during which he traveled frequently to New 
York and his private island in the Virgin Islands. 
The Daily Beast has now discovered another instance in which Epstein apparently received special 
consideration: As a convicted sex offender, he is required by law to undergo an impartial psychological 
evaluation prior to sentencing and to receive psychiatric treatment during and after incarceration. This 
is because child molesters tend to be repeat offenders with high rates of recidivism. According to a 
source in law enforcement, however, Epstein was allowed to submit a report by his private 
psychologist, Dr. Stephen Alexander of Palm Beach, Florida, whose phone has since been 
disconnected with no forwarding information. 
The Daily Beast's second article provided details about Epstein's systematic abuse of underage girls 
at his Palm Beach mansion, where members of his staff allegedly recruited and paid a parade of 
teenagers, most of them 16 or younger, to perform daily massages that devolved into masturbation, 
groping, and sometimes full-blown sexual contact. It also revealed a monetary relationship between 
Epstein and Jean Luc Brunel, a frequent visitor to whom he gave $1 million around the same time that 
Brunel was starting his MC2 modeling agency. Some of the young girls MC2 recruited from overseas 
-often from Eastern Europe and South America—are known to have been passengers on Epstein's 
private jets. 
The U.S. Attorney General's Office in Florida says that it is against policy to confirm or deny the 
existence of an investigation. Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer, Jack Goldberger, says he has no knowledge of 
an ongoing probe, and he told The Daily Beast, "Jeffrey Epstein has fully complied with all state and 
federal requirements that arise from the prior proceedings in Palm Beach. There are no pending civil 
lawsuits. There are not and should not be any pending criminal investigations, given Mr. Epstein's 
complete fulfillment of all the terms of his non-prosecution agreement with the federal government." 
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/hedge-funder-joseph-epstein-investigated-for-child-
trafficking-2010-7#ixzz1FxAJrd Fa 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Monday, March 14, 2011 11:27 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
FW: Cassell or Edwards commenting to press re Jane Doe suit 
Attachments: 
Duke of York to face fresh questions as Epstein case takes new twist - Telegraph.pdf.zip 
(USAFLS); 
Thought you should see this. Don't know if we need to file anything with the court about disclosing matters before the court 
to the press? Or whether it appears that Edwards may be trying to use the new criminal investigation to assist him in his 
defense of Epstein's civil suit against him (or in Edwards' counterclaim for defamation)? 
The agents fly to Australia today to interview the witness. 
EFTA00206285

From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Tuesday, March 15, 2011 6:51 PM 
To: 
. (USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS): 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Epstein 
Hi M, 
I think you mentioned last week that you were preparing a memo addressing some of the legal and strategic 
issues relating to a potential new investigation into Epstein and/or other targets. Once you've done that, we 
should probably set aside some time to chat about the case generally. Also, 
reached out to 
and me last week and raised some issues that we can discuss as well. Thanks. 
From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: 
(USAFLS)<
> 
Friday, March 04, 2011 3:47 PM 
. (USAFLS) 
(USAFLS) 
FW: Jeffrey Epstein 
Here is his inquiry =— he wants me to confirm whether FBI is interested in this info. I will not. 
 
Original rslessage 
From: 
[mailto: 
Sent: FridAy,IMarch 04, 2011 3:16 PM 
To: =.= 
(USAFLS 
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear 
I work for the Mail on Sunday newspaper in London, En land. The Mail on 
Sunday last week published an interview with 
about her 
time working for Jeffrey Epstein. We plan to publish more revelations this 
week. 
I have been led to believe that the FBI is interested in pursuing the 
allegations published in the Mail on Sunday - and that Epstein may have 
committed offences not covered by the non prosecution agreement. 
Can you give me any guidance as to whether my information is correct? 
You may contact me by email or on 
Regards, 
Nick Pryer 
Assistant Features Editor 
Mail on Sunday 
EFTA00206286

This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee 
only. It contains information which may be confidential and legally 
privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named 
addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or 
use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please 
notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please 
be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not 
reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of 
its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free 
from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments 
to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus 
which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other 
e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully 
carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. 
Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: 
This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be 
confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to 
receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify 
the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in 
this e-mail may not reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of its subsidiary companies. 
We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any 
attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of 
this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent 
abuse of these facilitl 
ies. 
Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: 
From: 
(USAFI-S)
> 
Sent: 
Tuesday, March 01, 20114:51 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Janes Does 1 and 2 v. United States - March 1, 2011 Conference Call with Cassell 
and MI, 
At 11:30 a.m. today, M, 
=, 
and I spoke with Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards on a conference call 
regarding the posture of the case. 
told them we had spoken with officials at the DOJ, and the 
government was not going to stand by the sidelines and allow the victims to litigate the impropriety of 
negotiating the non-prosecution agreement without consulting the victims. 
We told Cassell we were going to 
defend the government's actions. At this point, Cassell said they only wanted us to stand by the sidelines if the 
court determined that rights attached in the absence of a charging document. 
This was not my recollection of what was discussed on February 10. In any event, I told him the government 
believed the court was without authority to set aside the non-prosecution agreement, even if it found a 
violation of the CVRA. Cassell said our position was that the right to consult was a right without a remedy. I 
said yes, in our situation involving a non-prosecution agreement. 
He argued that in In Re Dean the Fifth 
Circuit found that the plea agreement could be set aside. I told Cassell that a plea agreement comes before 
the court for approval, but a non-prosecution agreement is not subject to judicial pre-approval. 
EFTA00206287

We then began talking about information the victims wanted from the government. Cassell tried to analogize 
the victims as criminal defendants, entitled to information helpful to their cases, just like a defendant is entitled 
to exculpatory and impeachment information. 
I disagreed. The right of a criminal defendant to obtain 
exculpatory and impeachment information is based on the due process clause, which does not apply to our civil 
litigation. 
Cassell then suggested we should try to cooperate, and provide helpful information in our possession. When 
we told him we were not obligated to do that, Edwards asked if it would be alright to address their inquiries 
directly to the United States Attorney. I told him they were free to do so, as the United States Attorney was a 
public official. I expect you will be receiving a letter soon seeking access and disclosure of information 
pertaining to C.W. and T.M. 
Edwards said he would be sending us a draft statement of facts and their legal memorandum in the next few 
days. Cassell again mentioned the letters written by 
and others, expressing the view 
that the CVRA applied to the victims. I told them that such factual admissions did not create a legal duty, 
where one does not otherwise exist. If we had written a hundred letters stating no duty existed without a 
charging document, I don't think the victims would be voluntarily dismissing their case. 
While Cassell denied they were seeking to make our office look bad, he also said he believed it relevant that the 
court know about what was going on between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein's attorneys, as well as the 
correspondence between the FBI and this Office, telling the victims of their rights under the CVRA. In previous 
phone conferences, he has suggested this office engaged in duplicity by telling victims they had rights under the 
CVRA, but negotiating the non-prosecution agreement without consulting with them. 
From: 
Sent: 
To: 
Subject: 
Nasty, huh? 
 
Original Message 
From: csamoff [mailto: 
Sent: TuestS March 01, 2011 4:02 PM 
To: 'MI= 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Re: hypothetical question 
(USAFLS) <
> 
Tuesday, March 01, 2011 4:08 PM 
(USAFLS); 
FW: hypothetical question 
(USAFLS) 
Yes 
this is a great inconvenience. Odd too that a practising lawyer cannot comment on a hypothetical case. 
Forgive me, I thought moot court was exactly this- to learn the law through simulated court proceedings. 
In the meantime, do you know a prosecutor in Fla who would speak to me who has nothing to do with Epstein case- since 
this is obviously your concern- who would answer this hypothetical question? 
Thank you, 
Conchita 
 
Original Message-----
From: 
To: 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
EFTA00206288

Subject: RE: hypothetical question 
Sent: 1 Mar 2011 15:19 
Hi Conchita. 
I received your voicemail and 
explained your conversation with her 
to me. Unfortunately, I cannot help you either. My answer is the same 
as hers: As prosecutors, we cannot give you a legal opinion on whether a 
hypothetical set of facts might or might not constitute a federal crime. 
Sorry for the inconvenience. 
Take care, 
----Original Message 
From: csamoff [mailto: 
Sent: TuescS March 01, 2011 2:09 PM 
To: Mg 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Hello 
Left message on your VB. Spoke to 
this morning who said 
she would have you call me. 
Have a legal question re prosecution of adult sex offenders in Fla. 
If adult (pimp) pays a minor, to have sex with another adult (say 
transaction was negotiated in Fla or other state in the US), and minor 
has sex with another adult (not pimp) outside the US, is that considered 
a crime in Fla and the US? 
Secondly, can "pimp" be prosecuted in fia or other US state for paying 
minor to have sex with other adult outside US? 
Tha
n 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Tuesday, March 01, 2011 3:43 PM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: hypothetical question 
Wouldn't all of this have been easier if we had just prosecuted Epstein in the first place? 
Assistant U.S. Attorne 
Fax 
Ori2irS Message 
From: =. 
(USAFLS) 
EFTA00206289

Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 3:19 PM 
To: 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: hypothetical question 
Hi Conchita. 
I received your voicemail and 
explained your conversation with her to me. Unfortunately, I cannot help you either. 
My answer is the same as hers: As prosecutors, we cannot give you a legal opinion on whether a hypothetical set of facts 
might or might not constitute a federal crime. Sorry for the inconvenience. 
Take care, 
 
Original Message--
From: csarnoff (mailta: 
Sent: TuescS March 01, 2011 2:09 PM 
To: IM, MMI (USAFLS) 
Subject: 
Hello 
Left message on your VB. Spoke to 
this morning who said she would have you call me. 
Have a legal question re prosecution of adult sex offenders in Fla. 
If adult (pimp) pays a minor, to have sex with another adult (say transaction was negotiated in Fla or other state in the US), 
and minor has sex with another adult (not pimp) outside the US, is that considered a crime in Fla and the US? 
Secondly, can "pimp" be prosecuted in fla or other US state for paying minor to have sex with other adult outside US? 
Tha
n 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: 
Tuesday, March 01, 2011 10:02 AM 
To: 
(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: 
RE: Press Inquiries re Jeffrey Epstein Case 
Attachments: 
jeffrey-epstein-introduc.pdf; Daily Mail Article.pdf 
Hial
and Annette — I just left 
a long involved voicemail because I received two calls from 
also about this story, asking for my opinion about what was reported in the Daily Mail story. I told 
Conchita that I cannot answer her questions and that she should be posing those uestions to the attorney for her 
newspaper, not to me. I told Conchita that you would call her. Her number is 
Anyhow, here is a copy of the Daily Mail story and a copy of a story that appeared in today's Palm Beach Daily 
News that just reiterates the Daily Mail story. 
In terms of what you can say, I would run it past 
and MI but just that the prior administration decided to 
defer prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State, which had originally opened the case. One important 
point of fact, which probably cannot be disclosed, is that 
refused to cooperate with the FBI 
investigation at the time, although in the article she states that she told everything to the FBI. 
EFTA00206290

Thank you. 
<leffrey-epstein-introduc.pdf» «Daily Mail Articie.pdf» 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: MI, 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda Februa 
28, 2011 5:21 PM 
To: 
.(USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: RE: Press Inquiries re Jeffrey Epstein Case 
He just did and left massage. Can we speak to him, and what would we say? I suggest we pass, unless he just 
basic info about the charges. What do you think? 
From: 
(USAFLS) 
Sent: Monda February 28, 2011 3:56 PM 
To: 
USAFLS) 
Cc: 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); 
(USAFLS) 
Subject: Press Inquiries re Jeffrey Epstein Case 
Hi 
— I just got a call from a reporter for the Daily Mail, one of the Britain's main newspapers, about 
Epstein. There is a lot of hubbub over there about Epstein right now because he was recently photographed with 
Prince Andrew. 
I gave him your name and number and told him to call you. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fax 
From: 
(USAFLS) <
> 
EFTA00206291

Sent: 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: 
Friday, March 04, 2011 3:56 PM 
(USAFLS) 
RE: Jeffrey Epstein 
HI Nick. 
Thank you for your email. This is always the best way to get me. I am hardly ever at my desk, but always have my 
blackberry on me. 
As to your question, I will not be able to help you. We cannot comment, confirm or deny the existence of any investigation 
or on our intention to open or close a matter. 
Sorry 
Thanks 
From: 
[mailto: 
Sent: FriciAyarch 04, 2011 3:16 PM 
To: =.= 
(USAFLSil 
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear 
I work for the Mail on Sunday newspaper in London, En land. The Mail on 
Sunday last week published an interview with 
about her 
time working for Jeffrey Epstein. We plan to publish more revelations this 
week. 
I have been led to believe that the FBI is interested in pursuing the 
allegations published in the Mail on Sunday - and that Epstein may have 
committed offences not covered by the non prosecution agreement. 
Can you give me any guidance as to whether my information is correct? 
You may contact me by email or on 
Regards, 
Nick Pryer 
Assistant Features Editor 
Mail on Sunday 
This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee 
only. It contains information which may be confidential and legally 
privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named 
addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or 
use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please 
notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Please 
be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not 
reflect the views and opinions of Associated Newspapers Limited or any of 
its subsidiary companies. We make every effort to keep our network free 
from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments 
to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus 
which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other 
e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully 
carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. 
EFTA00206292