EFTA00229667

massage table. Epstein would then instruct the girl on what to do and would ask her to 
remove her clothing. After some time, Epstein would turn over, so that he was lying face up. 
Epstein would masturbate himself and fondle the girl performing the massage. When Epstein 
climaxed, the massage was over, and the girl was instructed to get dressed and to go 
downstairs to the kitchen while Epstein showered. Epstein's assistant would be in the 
kitchen and the girl would be paid—usually $200—and if it was a "new" girl, the assistant 
would ask for the girl's phone number to contact her in the future.' Girls were encouraged 
to find other girls to bring with them. If a girl brought another girl to perform a "massage," 
each girl would receive $200. Each time a girl returned to the house, Epstein would pressure 
the girl to go further sexually, advancing to oral sex and sexual intercourse. Epstein would 
pay more for these acts — in the words of one girl, "the more you do, the more you make." 
The PBPD investigation consisted primarily of sworn taped statements from the girls. 
When PBPD began having problems with PBSAO, they approached the FBI. The 
investigation was formally presented to the FBI and to the U.S. Attorney's Office after 
PBSAO "presented" the case to a state grand jury and the state grand jury returned an 
indictment charging Epstein only with one felony count of solicitation of [adult) prostitution. 
After the matter was presented to the U.S. Attorney's Office and there was a 
determination that federal statutes had been violated, FBI, ICE, and the U.S. Attorney's 
Office opened files. The federal investigation focused on the interstate nexus required for 
all of the federal violations, so a number of grand jury subpoenas were issued for telephone 
records, flight manifests, and credit card records. The federal agents also re-interviewed 
some of the girls. The agents delved into Epstein's history and interviewed other girls and 
obtained records to corroborate the girls' stories. FBI also interviewed girls who came 
forward after the PBSAO indictment was reported in the papers and the additional girls 
identified through those interviews. 
The attempt to handle secretly the federal case was doomed from the start when the 
Chief of the Palm Beach Police Department gave a letter to each of the victims identified 
through his investigation telling them that, because of his disappointment in the way that the 
PBSAO had handled the case, the matter had been referred to the FBI. Almost immediately, 
Epstein's attorneys began calling to request a meeting with the U.S. Attorney's Office. 
When one attorney was unable to schedule a meeting, Epstein hired another attorney who 
called up the chain of command until someone agreed to a meeting. 
'Sometimes Epstein made the payment and asked for the phone number, sometimes it was 
the assistant. 
3 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013268 
EFTA00229687

Between January and May 2007, an indictment package was prepared, charging 
Epstein and three of his personal assistants with a number of child exploitation offenses. The 
case agent made several appearances before the grand jury. Attorneys for Epstein made 
several presentations to the U.S. Attorney's Office to convince the Office not to prosecute, 
and made allegations of prosecutorial misconduct against the line Assistant and the First 
Assistant U.S. Attorney. Epstein also challenged the legal analysis behind the prosecution, 
both within the U.S. Attorney's Office (up to the U.S. Attorney) and to the Child Exploitation 
and Obscenity Section at the Justice Department. All of Epstein's challenges were 
considered and rejected. 
HI. 
The Resolution of "Operation Leap Year" 
On September 24, 2007, Epstein signed a Non-Prosecution Agreement wherein the 
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida promised not to prosecute Epstein 
for the crimes that were the subject of the grand jury investigation if: (1) he pled guilty to two 
crimes in state court — the state felony prostitution charge and a state charge of procuring 
minors into prostitution, which would require Epstein to register as a sex offender; (2) he 
were sentenced to at least 18 months' imprisonment, and (3) he agreed to pay damages to the 
victims of his offenses. After signing this Agreement, Epstein and his counsel decided that 
they were dissatisfied with its terms, and again complained to the Justice Department, 
seeking review to the Deputy Assistant Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. 
After those attempts also failed, on June 30, 2008, Epstein entered his guilty plea in 
state court and began serving his sentence. 
IV. 
Post-Resolution Events 
A few days before the plea and sentencing (in state court those occur on the same 
day), the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling the matter contacted counsel for three of Epstein's 
identified victims and informed him of the upcoming court date, encouraging his clients to 
attend and be heard. They did not appear. On July 7, 2008, two of those victims filed suit 
against the United States in federal court claiming that their rights had been violated under 
the Crime Victims' Rights Act because they had not been consulted before the Office entered 
into the Non-Prosecution Agreement. (This will be referred to as the "CVRA Action.") 
After an initial flurry of activity, the Petitioners obtained a copy of the confidential 
Non-Prosecution Agreement, and the Court ordered that it be shared with all of the identified 
victims. After it was provided, the Petitioners and most of Epstein's victims focused on their 
4 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013269 
EFTA00229688

civil suits against him. 
In 2009, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Fort Lauderdale initiated an investigation into 
a Ponzi scheme operated by Scott Rothstein through his law firm. As part of his Ponzi 
scheme, Rothstein told investors that his law firm represented several of Epstein's victims 
and that Epstein was willing to pay huge sums of money to avoid exposing his criminal 
activities. The attorney representing the victims in the CVRA Action, Brad Edwards 
("Edwards"), worked at the Rothstein firm. Epstein sued Edwards, alleging that Edwards 
was part of the Ponzi scheme, and alleging that Edwards' attempts to subpoena some of 
Epstein's high-powered friends were done to increase the value of the Ponzi scheme, rather 
than for legitimate discovery purposes. 
In the summer of 2010, most of the civil suits against Epstein were settled, including 
the suits filed by the two victims in the CVRA Action. All of the settlements were 
confidential, so it is unknown how much each of the victims received. 
In September 2010, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra, who handled most of the civil 
cases and the CVRA Action, issued an Order closing the CVRA Action. Almost 
immediately thereafter, the Petitioners filed a Motion to Reopen, stating that they had 
obtained discovery through their civil suits against Epstein that showed that the U.S. 
Attorney's Office had violated their rights as victims. 
For several months, attempts were made to resolve the matter. In short, the victims 
have asked that the U.S. Attorney's Office disavow the Non-Prosecution Agreement, on the 
basis that the CVRA was violated, and bring charges against Epstein. Edwards has said that 
one of his clients repeatedly calls and asks him when Epstein is going to jail. One of the 
other attorneys on the case has suggested that emails he considers to be embarrassing to the 
Office will not be disclosed if we re-open our investigation of Epstein and prosecute him. 
Herein lies the conflict. If the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of 
Florida re-initiates a grand jury investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, it will be perceived —
correctly or incorrectly — as having been done at the insistence of the victims in the CVRA 
Action. And Epstein will allege that any prosecution arising therefrom will have been 
undertaken in an effort to resolve the CVRA Action, not based upon the merits of the 
investigation itself. 
I. 
The FBI's Current Investigation 
5 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013270 
EFTA00229689

The main focus of the FBI's current investigation is a victim, =, 
who refined 
to speak with agents during the "Operation Leap Year" investigation. Based upon her 
debriefing, Epstein engaged in several additional crimes in the Southern District of Florida 
and, more important! in several other Districts, with 
and other minor females. 
Epstein transported 
n his private airplanes to engage in sexual activity with him. 
Epstein also "pimped" 
to several of his other important friends, and transported her 
to those sexual encounters. This activity was not part of the initial investigation. 
also reported that, during the "Operation Leap Year" investigation, she was 
contacted by Epstein's investigators, lawyers, and Epstein himself, and offered payment to 
remain silent when contacted by the police. 
FBI agents are seeking grand jury subpoenas at this time to corroborate 
statement. They also are asking for permission to approach one of Epstein's "personal 
assistants," who was served with a target letter during the "Operation Leap Year" 
investigation, to give her a "de-target" letter and interview her. 
There are several other Districts that may have jurisdiction over the additional crimes 
under investigation. Epstein lived and still lives in the Southern District of New York; he 
engaged in sexual activity with 
in the S.D.N.Y.; and it is believed that he made the 
calls from the S.D.N.Y. to 
wherein he offered to pay her to keep her from speaking 
to law enforcement. When Epstein would fly into and out of New York, however, he used 
the airport in Teterboro, New Jersey, so the District of New Jersey also has jurisdiction over 
charges related to traveling in interstate commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct and 
transporting minors in interstate commerce. 
reported that Epstein engaged in sexual 
activity with her on his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands and also had her engage in 
sexual activity with one of his friends on that island, so the District of the Virgin Islands also 
would have jurisdiction. 
also reported frequent sexual activity with Epstein in the 
District of New Mexico and the Central District ofCalifornia. In both of those Districts there 
is evidence (from 
or other witnesses) of Epstein engaging in illegal sexual activity 
with other underage victims, as well. 
6 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013271 
EFTA00229690

From: 
Sent 
To: 
Subject: 
Frida , December 17, 2010 12:45 PM 
RE: Request for Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims 
Rights Litigation 
As your office is, from my understanding, will be looking to have this CVRA suit dismissed, consistent with 
DoJ's position in other similar cases, under 12(b)(6) or equivalent because the plaintiffs did not have rights 
under the CVRA as no formal charge was filed, there is not, at present, a need for your office to be 
recused. If/when this changes and more substantive work may be involved (e.g. if a judge does not dismiss 
under this procedural bar), we can revisit. 
Have a good holiday. 
- Peter 
From:
16, 2010 4:28 PM 
To: 
Subject: Re: Request for Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation 
Peter, 
That is correct. 
From: 
16, 2010 02:43 PM 
To: 
Subject: RE: Request for Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation 
I take it by your schedule, that nothing is pressing on this allowing it to be handled, if recusal is 
necessary, the week leading up to New Year's (27-30'1)? 
- Peter 
From: USAEO-GCO Duty 
Sent: Thursda 
Decem r 16, 2010 11:15 AM 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject FW: Request for Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013272 
EFTA00229691

Peter- Please see duty matter below. Thank you. Lorene 
Froa
Th
p... 
Sent: 
urs ay, 
ember 16, 2010 10:38 AM 
To: 
. (USAFLS); 
(USAFLS); Jacobus, Wendy (USAFLS) 
or Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation 
We are seeking guidance and advice from EOUSA General Counsel on whether this Office can continue to 
represent the government in the defense of a Crime Victims Rights Act lawsuit, Jane Does 1 and 2'. United 
States, Case No. 08.80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D.Fla.), in light of a request by Paul Cassell, counsel for the victims, 
asking for an investigation of this office into what they claim is a "suspicious" criminal case and potential 
improper influence of this Office. 
In 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein, a multi-
millionaire investor living in Palm Beach, was enticing underage girls into prostitution. 
Epstein was alleged to 
have paid underage girls to provide him with massages, while the young girls were unclothed. 
The case was 
referred to the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office, and the FBI began its own investigation. 
Epstein hired a 
number of highly-paid attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, to attempt to stave off criminal 
charges. 
Ultimately, in 2007, Epstein was charged in state court with soliciting minors for prostitution. 
In September 
2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein, in which he agreed 
to plead guilty to the state criminal charge, and serve a sentence of 18 months. Epstein also agreed that, in 
any civil action under 18 U.S.C. 2255 by the underage victims, he would not raise the lack of a federal sex 
offense as a defense. 
In July 2008, Epstein plead guilty, and was sentenced to serve six months at the Palm 
Beach County Detention Facility, followed by 12 months in home detention. 
In July 2008, after the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been executed, two victims, TM and CW, filed an 
action under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. 
They claimed that the government was 
obligated, under 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(5), to speak with the victims prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement. 
An emergency hearing was held on July 11, 2008, before U.S. District Judge Kenneth 
Marra. 
Since Epstein had entered his state court plea and been sentenced already, the court found there 
was no emergency. He directed the parties to meet and determine if there were any factual disputes and 
whether an evidentiary hearing would be necessary. 
Attorney Brad Edwards initially represented the victims. Soon, he was joined by Paul Cassell, a University of 
Utah law professor, and former federal judge who served in the District of Utah from 2002-2007. Cassell is a 
victims' rights advocate who has appeared in many cases throughout the United States. 
The victims' rights 
suit was inactive for the next two years, with Edwards and Cassell using the civil suit as a means to attempt to 
gain access to information helpful in their civil actions for damages against Epstein. 
They were able to obtain 
a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement through the civil litigation. 
In August 2010, the district court, noting that the last civil suit had been settled, entered an order closing the 
case. 
Edwards and Cassell immediately filed documents with the court, advising that the case should not be 
closed or dismissed, and they wanted to pursue final action by the court. 
Since September 2010, AUSA 
and I have been dealing with Cassell and Edwards on how to resolve the case. 
They claim the 
victims had a right to be consulted prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and that we 
2 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013273 
EFTA00229692

violated the CVRA by not consulting them. The remedy they seek is a set aside by the court of the Non-
Prosecution Agreement, and a prosecution of Epstein. 
On December 10, 2010, United States Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer, First Assistant 
M
e and I, met with Cassell, Edwards, and CW, one of the victims. 
We discussed the posture of the 
case, and CW told us her views of what occurred and her desire to see Epstein receive justice for what he 
did. Cassell presented U.S. Attorney Ferrer a four-page letter, requesting an investigation of the Jeffrey 
Epstein prosecution. A copy of Cassell's letter is attached. 
He claims there may have been improper 
influence exercising by Epstein, noting that Epstein is a "politically-connected billionaire." 
Cassell cites to 
an alle ed ti off to Epstein that a search warrant on his residence was to be executed; that a former AUSA, 
left the West Palm Beach office and soon began appearing on behalf of individuals aligned 
with Epstein; and an unprecedented level of secrecy between the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, where 
the FBI was purportedly kept in the dark about the impending Non-Prosecution Agreement. He also claims 
that the victims were deceived regarding the existence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. 
Cassell's request for an investigation was referred to DOJ OPR on December 16, 2010. 
We are concerned 
whether the victims' allegations of potential misconduct by our office, that we were improperly influenced by 
a wealthy individual into granting an extremely generous agreement sparing him federal prosecution, might 
be a basis for questioning our office's impartiality in defending the Crime Victims Rights Act lawsuit. While 
our litigating position is that the CVRA rights do not attach under a formal charge is filing, much of the 
undercurrent of the litigation, particularly from the victims' viewpoint, is deceptive and improper conduct by 
officials in the U.S. Attorney's Office. 
I am at the NAC today. I will be going on my Christmas vacation starting tomorrow, December 17. I can be 
reached by e-mail at all times, and also can be reached at all times at (786) 564-9114. I will be back at my 
office on December 29. 
Thanks for your assistance. 
Ethics Advisor 
Southern District of Florida 
« File: cassell_OPR.pdf » 
3 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013274 
EFTA00229693

U
. 
S.J. QUINNEY 
COLLEGE OF LAW 
THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 
'Wifredo A. Ferrer 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
99 N.E.4" Street 
Miami, FL 33132 
PAUL G. CASSELL 
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law 
Telephone. 801.585.5202 
cassellprglaw.utah.edu 
December 10, 2010 
Re: 
Request for Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Prosecution 
Dear Mr. Ferrer: 
I am writing as someone with extensive experience in the federal criminal justice system 
— as a former Associate Deputy Attorney General, Assistant United States Attorney, federal 
judge, and currently criminal law professor — to alert you to what seems to be the most 
suspicious criminal case I have ever encountered. I ask that you investigate whether there were 
improper influences and actions during your office's criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, 
particularly regarding the decision to enter into a binding non-prosecution agreement blocking 
his prosecution for numerous federal sex offenses he committed over many years against more 
than thirty minor girls. 
As I am sure you are well aware, in 2006 your office opened a criminal investigation with 
the FBI into allegations that for years Jeffrey Epstein sexual abused dozens of minor girls in his 
West Palm Beach mansion. The FBI soon developed compelling evidence that Epstein had in 
fact committed numerous federal sex offenses with more than 30 minor girls. And yet, your 
office ultimately entered into a plea arrangement which allowed Epstein escape with a non-
prosecution agreement that ensured he would have no federal criminal liability and would 
spend no more than 18 months in state jail. For sexual offenses of this magnitude — in a case 
with more than 30 witnesses providing interlocking testimony, all made automatically 
admissible by virtue of Fed. R. Evid. 414 — this is an extraordinary outcome. 
Why did your office enter into this highly unusual non-prosecution arrangement with 
Epstein? Suspicion begins with the point that Epstein is a politically-connected billionaire. But 
that wouldn't be troubling without considerable other evidence that something went terribly 
wrong with the prosecution for other, improper reasons. Consider the following highly unusual 
facts: 
First, it appears that Epstein was tipped off before the execution of a search warrant at 
his home. We know that lead state police officers -- Detective Recarey and Police Chief Michael 
Reiter -- complained that the house was "sanitized" by the time they arrived to serve a search 
warrant for child pornography. This sanitation was evident by the various computer wires 
hanging with no computers attached. Housekeeper Janusz Banasiak later testified In a civil 
84112-1)
P-013275 
EFTA00229694

deposition that Epstein's assistant, 
d another man (unknown) were 
instructed to remove, and did in fact remove, multiple computers from Epstein's home shortly 
before the search warrant was served. The fact that there could well have been a tip off is 
apparently suspected by federal authorities. 
Second, there is evidence that one of the senior prosecutors in your office joined 
Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability 
— and improperly re resented people close to Epstein. During the federal investigation of 
Epstein, 
was a senior Assistant U.S. Attorney in your office. As we understand 
things, he was a direct supervisor of the line prosecutor handling the case and thus was well 
aware of details of the Epstein investigation and plea negotiations. We further believe that he 
was consulted on issues related to the prosecution of Epstein and Epstein's co-conspirators, 
including specifically issues related to whether Epstein employees and pilots should be 
prosecuted for their Involvement in Epstein's sexual offense. We further believe that he 
personally and substantially participated in making such decisions about the course of the 
criminal investigation. 
Within months after the non-prosecution agreement was signed by your office, 
left your office and Immediately went into private practice as a white collar criminal defense 
attorney. His office coincidentally happened to be not only in the same building (and on same 
floor) as Epstein's lead criminal defense counsel, lack Goldberger, but it was actually located 
right next door to the Florida Science Foundation -- an Epstein-owned and -run company where 
Epstein spent his "work release." 
While working in this office adjacent to Epstein's, 
undertook the representation 
of numerous Epstein employees and pilots during the civil cases filed against Epstein by the 
victims —cases that involved the exact same crimes and exact same evidence being reviewed by 
the U.S. Attorney's office when he was employed there. Specifically, he represented= 
(Epstein's number one co-conspirator whowas actually named as such in the NPA), his 
housekeeper (Louella Ruboyo), his pilots Larry Morrison, Larry Visoski, David Rogers, William 
Hammond and Robert Roxburgh. (Hammond and Roxburgh were not deposed but the others 
were.) Our understanding is that his representation of these individuals was paid for, directly 
or indirectly, by Epstein. 
was well aware of what evidence your office and federal investigator had 
collected against Epstein and about the minor girls who were his victims. As a consequence, he 
knew what evidence the attorneys for the victims were using. He also knew what each of those 
witnesses had said, if anything, to federal and state investigators during the criminal 
investigation. 
We have been unable to place our fingers on the federal regulations governing such later 
representation. We do know, however, that such actions appear to be in direct contravention 
of the Florida ethical rules regarding attorneys who leave government employment. For 
• 
2 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013276 
EFTA00229695

example, Florida R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.11(a) provides la) lawyer shall not represent a private 
client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially 
as a public officer or employee unless the appropriate government agency consents after 
consultation." Similarly, Florida R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.11(b) provides that la] lawyer having 
information that the lawyer knows is confidential government information about a person 
acquired when the lawyer was a public officer or employee may not represent a private client 
whose interests are adverse to that person in a matter in which the information could be used 
to the material disadvantage of that person." Both these rules appear to have been violated. 
But entirely apart from the details of ethical rules, the fact that one of your prosecutors was 
involved in making Important decisions about the scope of criminal liability for Epstein and his 
associates and then — after criminal liability was significantly limited — representing numerous 
people at Epstein's behalf raises serious questions. At the very feast, there is the strong 
appearance that Reinhard may have attempted to curry favor with Epstein and then reap his 
reward through favorable employment. At the very worst, there may have been advance 
discussions — we simply don't know at this point. 
Third, Epstein appears to have deliberately kept from victims in the case correspondence 
with your office and the Justice Department that might have shed light on improper influences. 
Along with other capable attorneys, I was involved in representing one of Epstein's victims 
(S.R.) who filed a federal civil case against Epstein. Suspecting that Epstein may have 
improperly influenced your office, we immediately served discovery requests on Epstein for all 
the correspondence with your office regarding the plea negotiations. Eleven months of hard 
litigation ensued, in which Epstein made every conceivable argument against production. 
Finally, late in June of this year, his appeals exhausted, Epstein produced the correspondence to 
us. However, in violation of the court order, he redacted the correspondence so that he 
provided only emails and other statements from your office — not his emails and statements to 
your office. More significantly, even though he was under court order to produce all 
correspondence between his attorneys and your office, Epstein secretly withheld 
• correspondence by several of his most high-powered attorneys — namely Ken Starr and Lilly Ann 
Sanchez. Epstein settled the case with S.R. within days after this limited production, and we did 
not realize the absence of what must have been critical discussions between your office and 
Starr and Snachez (among others). Epstein's refusal to allow us to see that information raises 
the suspicion in our minds that there must have been unusual pressures being brought to bear 
during the plea discussions that would have been revealed had Epstein complied with his 
production obligations. 
Fourth, there appears to have been an unprecedented level of secrecy between your 
office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this case. The FBI was responsible, along 
with state and local police agencies, for building the case against Epstein. They appear to have 
developed an overwhelming criminal against him. And yet, when your office signed the non-
prosecution agreement with him, it is not clear to us that the FBI was consulted about this 
decision. Indeed, we have suspicions that the FBI was not informed of this decision until, 
perhaps, months later. 
3 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013277 
EFTA00229696

Supporting this suspicion is our on-going litigation regarding the treatment of the victims 
in this case. As you know from our draft pleadings that we have discussed with your office, we 
believe there is compelling evidence that the victims and their attorneys were deceived about 
the existence of a non-prosecution agreement for months in order to avoid what certainly 
would have been a firestorm of controversy about such lenient treatment of a repeat sex 
offender. Our impression from the evidence we have been able to obtain so far is that the FBI 
was similarly kept in the dark — not consulted about or even told about the NPA. While a 
certain amount of tension has always existed between federal prosecuting and investigating 
agencies, not even informing the FBI about the Epstein NPA seems highly unusual. 
All of these strange facts — as well as the facts that we are alleging in our crime victims' 
litigation — lead us to think that there was something rotten with the way this case was 
handled. Epstein could have faced years and years in prison for numerous federal sex offenses. 
And yet he managed to contrive to walk away with no federal time at all (and only minimal 
state time). We respectfully ask you to investigate through appropriate and independent 
channels the handling of the Epstein (non prosecution. 
Thank you in advance for considering this request. I would be happy to provide any 
other additional information that would be useful to you. 
• 
Sincerely, 
Pau 
Cassel 
• 
4 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013278 
EFTA00229697