EFTA00231917

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07107/2008 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
08-80736-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON 
CASE NO.: 
IN RE: JANE DOE, 
Petitioner. 
Fle-WelltitY1 ail)  D.C. 
ELECTRUNC 
JULY 7, 2008 
STITCH M. LARIM0Nt 
CLOW O.S. 0151. 
5.0. OF FLA. MIAMI 
amers ewe y VICTIM'S PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF 
CRIME VICTIM'S RIGHTS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 3771 
COMES NOW the Petitioner, JANE DOE (hereinafter "Petitioner"), by and through her 
undersigned attorneys, pursuant to the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 
("CVRA"), and files this Petition for Enforcement in the above styled action as follows: 
1. 
Petitioner, an adult, as a minor child was a victim of federal crimes committed by 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN (hereinafter "Defendant"). 
These crimes included sex trafficking of 
children by fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, use of a means of interstate commerce to 
entice a minor to commit prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422, as well as wire fraud, in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The Defendant committed these crimes within the jurisdiction of 
the Southern District of Florida in Palm Beach County, Florida. 
2. 
Upon information and belief, the Defendant is the subject of a federal criminal 
investigation conducted by the United States of America in the Southern District of Florida. The 
Defendant has recently been prosecuted and pleaded guilty, on June 30, 2008, in the Circuit 
Court for Palm Beach County to various similar state offenses including solicitation of minors 
for prostitution. 
3. 
Upon information  and belief. the Defendant is _engaged in plea negotiations-with 
the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida concerning federal 
10110 
EFTA00232297

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 
Page 2 of 10 
%or 
crimes which he is alleged to have committed against minor children, including the Petitioner. 
Such negotiations may likely result in a disposition of the charges in the next several days. 
4. 
Under the CVRA, before any charges are filed against the Defendant, the 
Petitioner has the rights (among others) to notice of her rights under the CVRA, to confer with 
the prosecutors, and to be treated with fairness. As soon as charges are filed, the Petitioner has 
the rights (among others) to timely notice of court proceedings, the right not to be excluded from 
such proceedings, the right to be heard at such public proceedings regarding conditions of 
release, any plea, and any sentence, the right to confer with the attorney for the government, the 
right to restitution, and the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for her dignity and 
privacy. 
5. 
The Petitioner has been denied her rights in that she has received no consultation 
with the attorney for the government regarding the possible disposition of the charges, no notice 
of any public court proceedings, no information regarding her right to restitution, and no notice 
of rights under the CVRA, as required under law. 
6. 
The Petitioner is In jeopardy of losing her rights, as described above, if the 
government is able to negotiate a plea or agreement with the Defendant without her participation 
and knowledge. 
WHEREFORE, for the reasons outlined above, the Petitioner respectfully requests this 
Court to grant her Petition, and to order the United States Attorney to comply with the provisions 
of the CVRA prior to and including any plea or other agreement with the Defendant and any 
-------attendant proceedings. 
2 
Gene 
EFTA00232298

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07107/2008 
Page 3 of 10 
vet 
MEMORANDUM 
I. 
THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT MAKES CRIME VICTIMS 
INDEPENDENT 
PARTICIPANTS 
THROUGHOUT 
THE 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS. 
In October 2004, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Crime Victims' 
Rights Act, Pub. L. No. 108-405, I I8 Stat. 2251 (codified at I8 U.S.C. § 3771). Because this 
appears to be the first case involving the Act to come before this Court, a bit of background may 
be in order. 
A. 
The CVRA Gives Crime Victims Rights to Participate in the Criminal Justice 
Process. 
Congress passed the CVRA "to give crime victims enforceable rights to participate in 
federal criminal proceedings." Opinion at 14. Congress was concerned that in the federal system 
crime victims were "treated as non-participants in a critical event in their lives. They were kept 
in the dark by prosecutors too busy to care enough ... and by a court system that simply did not 
have a place for them." 150 Cowl REc. S4262 (Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein). 
To remedy this problem, Congress gave victims "the simple right to know what is going on, to 
participate in the process where the information that victims and their families can provide may 
be material and relevant ... ." Id. 
The CVRA gives victims of federal crimes a series of rights, including the right to notice 
of court proceedings, to be heard at plea and sentencing hearings, and to reasonably "confer with 
the attorney for the Government in the case." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). Victims also have a "right 
of access to the terms of a plea agreement ... ." In re Interested Party 1, 530 F.Supp. 2d 136, 
2008 WL 134233 at •7 (D.D.C. 2008). The CVRA also assures victims broadly that they will 
"be treated with fairness." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX8). 
3 
o/10 
EFTA00232299

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 
Page 4 of 10 
Of course, these rights would be of little use to most crime victims unless they were told 
about them. To ensure that victims are notified of their rights, the CVRA directs employees of 
the Justice Department "and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the 
detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime" to use their "best efforts to see that crime 
victims are notified of... the rights described (in the CVRA)." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1) (emphasis 
added).1 
B. 
The CVRA Gives Victims Rights During the Investigation of a Crime. 
The CVRA gives victims rights during the investigation of a crime. The Fifth Circuit 
recently reached this conclusion, holding: 
The district court acknowledged that "Where are clearly rights 
under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway." 
13P Prods., 2008 WL 501321 at *11, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12893 
at *36 Logically, this includes the CVRA's establishment of 
victims' "reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the 
Government." 18 U.S.C. & 3771O)(5). At least in the posture of 
this case (and we do not speculate on the applicability to other 
situations), the government should have fashioned a reasonable 
way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges and 
to ascertain the victims' views on the possible details of a plea 
bargain. 
In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008). 
The position that CVRA rights apply before charges have been filed is consistent with the 
Justice Department regulations under the CVRA, which explain that government officials "must 
advise a victim (about their rights under the CVRA) ... at the earliest opportunity at which it may 
be done without interfering with an investigation." A.G. GUIDELINES FOR Vicnm AND WITNESS 
I Further supporting this requirement is another statute. 42 U.S.C. § I0607(cX3), which directs government officials 
to provide victims with "the earliest possible notice of," among other things, "the filing of charges against a 
suspected offender." 
4 
of 10 
EFTA00232300

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 
Page 5 of 10 
Ist 
ASSISTANCE 23 (May 2005). And the plain language of the CVRA undergirds this conclusion, as 
it applies not simply to prosecutors but to government agencies "engaged in the detection [and] 
investigation ... of crime ... ." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1). Indeed, if there were any doubt, the plain 
language of the CVRA extends victims' right to situations "in which no prosecution is 
underway." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(dX3). 
II. 
PETITIONER IS A "VICTIM PROTECTED BY THE CVRA. 
Under the CVRA the crime victim is defined as "a person directly and proximately 
harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense ... ." 18 U.S.C. Section 3771(e). 
In 
particular, Defendant called Petitioner when she was a minor over a telephone (a means of 
interstate communication) requesting that she perform a massage in exchange for payment. As 
Defendant well knew, that request was fraudulent, as he not only intended to receive a massage, 
but also intended to have her perform sexual acts in exchange for a cash payment to Petitioner. 
Only when Petitioner arrived at a Defendant's mansion as directed by Defendant, did Defendant 
reveal his true purpose of obtaining sexual favors in exchange for payment. This conduct 
violated 18 U.S.C. § 2422, which forbids using a means of interstate commerce to knowingly 
"induce" or "entice" a minor "to engage in prostitution." In addition, this conduct was both a use 
of "fraud" to obtain a commercial sex act, in violation of 18 U.S.0 § 1591, and use of wire 
communications to perpetrate a "scheme and artifice to defraud," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 
1343. 
It appears obvious that Petitioner was "directly and proximately" harmed by these crimes, 
thereby making her a victim under the CVRA. It should be emphasized that the CVRA-"was 
designed to be a 'broad and encompassing' statutory victims' bill of rights." United States v. 
5 
50110 
EFTA00232301

Case 9:08-cv-60736-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 
Page 6 of 10 
%so 
Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d 1341, 1342 (D. Utah 2005) (quoting 150 Cong. Rec. S4261 (daily 
ed. Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein)). Congress intended the CVRA to dramatically 
rework the federal criminal justice system. In the course of construing the CVRA generously, the 
Ninth Circuit observed: "The criminal justice system has long fbnctioned on the assumption that 
crime victims should behave like good Victorian children -- seen but not heard. The Crime 
Victims' Rights Act sought to change this by making victims independent participants in the 
criminal justice process." Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court for CD. Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1013 (9th Cir. 
2006). Accordingly, because the CVRA is remedial legislation, courts should interpret it 
"liberally to facilitate and accomplish its purposes and intent." 
Elliott Industries Lid. 
Partnership v. BP America Production Co., 407 F.3d 1091, 1118 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting 
remedial legislation should be "interpreted liberally to facilitate and accomplish its purposes and 
intent"). The CVRA itself suggests this conclusion by requiring that courts must treat crime 
victims with "fairness." United States v. Patkar, 2008 WL 233062 at '3 (D. Haw. 2008) (citing 
United States v. Turner, 367 F.Supp.2d 319, 335 (ED.N.Y. 2005)). 
Not only must the CVRA as a whole be interpreted liberally, but its definition of "crime 
victim" requires a generous construction. After reciting the direct-and-proximate-harm language 
at issue here, one of the Act's two co-sponsors -- Senator Kyl -- explained that "jt]his is an 
intentionally broad definition because all victims of crime deserve to have their rights protected 
." I.50 Cong. Rec. S10912 (Oct. 9, 2004) (emphasis added). The description of the victim 
definition as "intentionally broad" was in the course of floor colloquy with the other primary 
sponsor of the CVRA and therefore deserves_significant weight—See Kenna, 435 Fid-at-1015-71 6 
(discussing significance of CVRA sponsors., floor statements). 
6 
gel Ill 
EFTA00232302

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 
Page 7 of 10 
v✓ 
%or 
The definition of "crime victims" must thus be construed broadly in favor of Petitioner. 
She obviously qualifies as a "victim" under the CVRA. 
III. 
PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO NOTICE OF HER RIGHTS, AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER WITH THE PROSECUTORS AND 
TO BE TREATED WITH FAIRNESS. 
Because Petitioner is a "victim" under the CVRA, she has certain protected rights under 
the Act. Most important, the Act promises that she will have an opportunity to "confer with the 
attorney for the Government in the case." To date, Petitioner has not been given that right. This 
raises that very real possibility that the Government may negotiate and conclude a plea agreement 
with the Defendant without giving Petitioner her protected rights.2 
Petitioner is entitled to have this conference with prosecutors before any final plea 
agreement is reached. The Fifth Circuit reached exactly this conclusion in a very recent case. In 
In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008), the Government negotiated a plea agreement with the 
well-heeled corporate defendant without conferring with the victims. When the Government's 
failure was challenged in the Fifth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the Government had 
indeed violated the CVRA. The Fifth Circuit observed: "In passing the [CVRAJ, Congress 
made the policy decision-which we are bound to enforce-that the victims have a right to inform 
the plea negotiation process by conferring with prosecutors before a plea agreement is reached." 
Id. at 394. 
This Court is obligated to protect the rights of Petitioner. The CVRA directs that "[i]n 
any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the 
2 On information and belief, roughly the same crimes were committed against several other young females. These 
victims, too, are in danger of losing their right to confer under the CVRA. 
7 
7 0110 
EFTA00232303

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 
Page 8 of 10 
crime victim is afforded the rights described in [the CVRA]." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(1). The 
CVRA also confers on crime victims the right to "assert the rights described in (the CVRA)." 18 
U.S.C. § 377I(d)(1). Therefore, this Court has its own independent obligation to intercede and 
ensure that the Government respects the rights of Petitioner under the CVRA. 
CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner requests the intervention of this Court to ensure that her rights are 
respected and accorded, as promised in the Crime Victims' Rights Act. 
DATED this 7th day of July, 2008. 
Respectfully Submitted, 
THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS & 
ASSOCIATES, LLC 
Brad Edwards, Esquire 
Attorney for Petitioner 
Florida Bar if
2028 Harrison Street 
Suite 202 
Hollywood, Florida 33020 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
8 
$0410 
EFTA00232304

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 1 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 
Page 9 of 10 
r► 
vs,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been 
provided by United States mail and via facsimile to: 
AUSA, 
United States Attorney's Office, 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, 
Florida 33401, this lth day of July, 2008. 
Brad Edwards, Esquire 
Attorney for Petitioner 
Florida Bar Nc 
9 
ol10 
EFTA00232305

011:VaiThfecbSIMA/MAPPN 
1•/1 44 1107 3 00 
ntered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 FfP5lleyl0all 0  D.C. 
ELECTKOINIC 
CIVIL COVER SHEET 
' 11
,44 do 1month/enmities Infortoollon swanned herein nother replaecnoe supplement the Ming ondsesoke of &wimps or othe papere 
by 
rules of coon. This four, approval Spin 
Coofesence °TIM lineal Stoics in Ss:member 1974, Li :mussed for the um of theClerk 
UM civil [Onkel sheet 'SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE RE% ERSE OF IRE FORM I 
NOTICE: Attorneys MUST ledlatte All Re-filed 
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS 
2-/-7 re: Dane Poe 
(b) Count) coiRelidalcc fire' Limed Plaintiff  f
il2/131 
44 
, 
MU DT IN US. PLAINT/IF EASES) 
(t) 
AUCIAt341/144•244m. A•lieu, V 
Telepbone Hiatt) 
4.1 49 0rAe t.F
l 60,1 64/At 
f,sso(efry
eoz S gineseet c-freter-f 
.f.../s/ 202. 
00/4/442., are 
'63 OZO 
DEFENDANTS 
04,1-0/ SPaftc 
JULY 7, 2008 
STEVEN N, LARTMORE 
WIRE O.S. O1ST. Et 
8.0. OF FLA. • MIAMI 
Cagily of RedIlarce of Firm Limed Mandan 
 
ON Us. PLAINTIFF CA SET no
NOT 0: IN LAND CONDE MNA /ION CATESJ/111 THE LOCATION or THE TR ACT 
LAND IIIVOL VIE. 
/ee 
a reyS 
check COMIly Mkt AEISIXIMaNt 3 MIAMI. DADS 
3 MONROE 3 MOW' 
PALM BEACH 3 MARTIN 3 ST. LUCIE 3 INDIAN RIVER 3 OKEECHOBEE 
1414111LAHDS 
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION nun 
Joon en own 
7 1 1,74.4.04ettame 
3 3 
NNW.: 43.0014. 
1710.011 
03.6. 00,40..... Hos • Posy) 
134.4.143.7.404, 
3 4 
Obasli, 
C eft-am 
Colemehip it fume rt Nat III) 
c-V 80/36 MAfl4 
V. 
A
I 
T 
otiN.SO 
III. C TIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIEStsta. an-x- mom Set Sit Piemdef 
NM DIM.* Cis 041,1 
4•4 Oµ On 1.4061444•40 
PIP Off 
PEP 
TIP 
CM. • of TEN ems 
3 
I 
3 I 
Imorp464.4 •Prkelmil Piece 
3 
4 
2 4 
of lams Is TIM Slit 
Clam" AfA•4044 Seelt 
Cline es 5.48441 a. 
04 Om Gene 
• 
3 
3 
taeorponsed waParOpal MOW 
3 
1 
7 1 
Or thisiatss In A•40.40 
• 
1 
3 
.1 hemp Mmis• 
5 
4 
3 6 
C 
s'alt:TRAPT 
POIPIITUILEHRNAL 1Y 
PANKRUPTCY 
runt sy 44 V 4 ES 
i 
its, ' 44444 ••• 
: IN Mmes. 
im /4.110 Ael 
: 
i 80 Wejnoble hAtrionical 
' 
130 A me.437.( 000pmemil 
R to fonte•sos of1Nyµa 
: IS' M Seery An 
' 
ITT Reemoy•113460•4 
Smeass Uµ. 
, 
Mil . Vtiaral 
If 1 Rite. my *I theepaymmel 
44006 We 10.40. 
7 140 SITe kbelder.' Seas 
: 1 190 OAT C16.1161 
PERSONµ 844360 V 
3 310 A .014•• 
3 311 A 44144. Pmeluct 
Lob.), 
3 )14 AUTO( MN & 
Mater 
3 IND Teekrel eamlemne 
L.6016 
7 la Moine 
3 HT Mabee trod... 
CRUM 
3 334/ MON Y000. 
3 SST Mom Yeltlele 
0ffiduti Lisbilky 
3 30 D'44, P 
4•I 
IT 07 
PIESON•L 'EMORY 
3 
341 P614tel NWT .. 
Med. Marsala 
, 
MO Perms& 6007 • 
Proton Lleatho 
S 30 Aelesuat termstal 
hmee ProIncl 
Llskillm 
PERSONAL PROPERTY 
3 
31d (1314! Mel 
3 111 Till* la Lelia. 
3 leo ono roman 
06Peell °INTO 
3 
333 Pnµrly Damp 
r00µ' LIAM Ty 
S 61044410.1eme 
2 620 Oiler TOW IL Dr•E 
3 0/ Diu Rd.µ llama 
41Propeetl II USC MO 
3 440 Limon Lin 
3 44011.R. A Emig 
2 140AMMe Rep, 
2 Oa (04.4pelismal 
Sallegaln10/ 
3 PM 004.4 
/ .11 A opal Pr USC Ii. 
7 ill WiRen.al 
IP UST ITT 
7 400 Mu'. 44444 melmatost 
3 Ile Asm4tm8 
3 µ0 Serbs INN Reek's' 
7 00 Consomme 
3 440 Deponas144 
2 
470 Rat Mem 14(04•6•4 m0 
C°10PI 0 lteMmisems 
7 
Oa l' easniit Credit 
7 
410 ONE Tos TY 
3 110 5•1440454011. 
3 U.S 
le C 
A Ire 
Embalm 
2 VS Cm ismeo Chelkete 
I 3 IL IC MIT 
3 190 Dibei inamory Atilmei 
D 111 Am atesimem sloe 
3 n: to. rook Sank.:.. M, 
3 61) E. inaNsial Men'. 
3 nµ 0067 Arematles. AN 
3 10110014smotlef0.0•0•4.40 
.3 il04 A 0000000 Pm Ileedmit.4•• 
h
 
U.S.0 001Aeeese a Anne, 
3  0501:46etambeaty 41 Sim 
ha Its 
A6KRTYRICKT1 
3 TS COPTAIIIM 
1 IM Pewee 
7 140 TnIeSiot 
LAR6R 
SOCIALSUNTIE 
3 161 NIA j(11511) 
1 UT ITImIt Ems 60)1 
2 I,, DIRCIIIWIll 1054,11 
3 144 MID TM XVI 
]w) 11111403101 
3 
710 Telt Labor 44.44mtli 
Ad 
3 
130 Lsbeenlam. R4144 es 
3 1/0 esloneepais,ptnua 
A Dleelesme A 0 
7 
NIORMI•ap LOS Ael 
3 MO Mtn Labor Lusatian 
1 91 t.pl. R O. In. Setwh, 
AN 
T. III coiner- oreeol now* 
P It. Weeeelme 
C 
REAL PROPERTY 
CIVIL RIGHTS 
PRISONER PETITIONS 
FEDERAL TAXIt/ITS 
310 L841Ce0000•11.4i 
7 :30 44444 .es. 
S 2)0 R•e• It of A (Stumm 
:40 Tong et 17.0 
U NO Tim Predets 48000. 
2. NO All hi., 4 01 Primany 
3 441 001/0 
3 441 C..boynttai 
3 44100.1.• 
Aseeesmod.004 
3 404 wmfast 
2 tisptox 
mesb110.4. , 
3 444 Ann • Diutent4. 
Oiber 
)6.. usbtr Chia RMS. 
3 
SIR M olives le Yallot 
Servos 
Holmes Corpus 
'I 1)00µe4, 
7 In 004, Poet. 
5 30 mass.,, om, 
7 
SST CNN 4 On 
3 
321 Prime (44•441e. 
3 111 tams I C.S. Plalms6 
w Derinderal 
S T /I ITS 7101 tiny 
24 USC nos 
I 
3  161NemetalmeMee 
3 Tel Noses* c.v....Atm. 
DelMmee 
3 A465 
mem 
ffilmblialemil" 
' 
V. ORIGIN 
IPlece • • X• sa Om Sirs Oslo 
i
t1 OTiEBTOI 
3 2 Removed from 
O 3 Re-I1364-
Procoecies 
Saw Cam 
(we VI below) 
RELA TEDatE-FILED 
CASE(S). 
$64 litrintlens 
Otai patik 
Irma red from 
Appeal no District 
O 4 RIIIITSIMSEST O S wow dim*, 
3 6 Mukklisukr 
O 7 
Jw/C rITTA
Reopared 
(IFHOY) 
LitIptIon 
Mlgktrale 
)0381111/11 
Re.tiled Case O YES ONO 
blitelsted Cases O YES ONO 
JUDGE 
DOCKET NUMBER 
VI
Com the MS.Civil Stature under vthieb you am Mom Ind Wine a Brief Statemeal 
Game (Do Ratelleiiteledktlentl noInter u In. 
El OTSITYK Crime fribgedn; t,4* Ref 
uSC. 
57 7) 
At ANON 
:r 
cave to 
11 SSW 
"vial' 
vita; ee late Cfreeige 
LENGTH OF TRIAL via  1  days railinated (Ex both sides to try mare too 
0 CHECK IF THIS LS A CIASS ACTION 
DEMANDS 
CHECK YES only if danowlest in oanolaim. 
UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 
VIII. REQUESTED IN 
COM PLAINT: 
ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORRECT TO 
NowayRJ 
 ten or RECORD 
on re 
lilt 
BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE 
FOR OITICE USE ONLY 
A006111350 a
*ECM 0 7,21/O3111
1
110110 
JURY DEMAND: 
O Yes 2 No 
EFTA00232306

RECYCLED PAPER 
TO REORDER CALL
N,D 
EFTA00232307

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 26 
Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2008 
Page 1 of 2 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
NO. 011-80736-CrV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
IN RE: JANE DOES 1 AND 2, 
Petitioners. 
ORDER TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER 
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Petitioners' ore tenus motion seeking the 
production of the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States Attorney's Office for the 
Southern District of Florida ("USAO") and Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). After consideration of the 
Motion, the arguments of the parties, and the record, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the 
Petitioners' Motion is GRANTED. The USAO shall produce the Non-Prosecution Agreement, 
including any modifications and addenda thereto, in accordance with the following procedures: 
(a) 
The USAO shall produce a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, 
including any modifications and addenda thereto (collectively referred to as the "Agreement"), to 
the attorneys for Petitioners. 
(b) 
Petitioners and their attorneys shall not disclose the Agreement or its terms 
to any third party absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's 
counsel to be heard. 
(c) 
Before counsel for petitioners show the Agreement to their clients or discuss 
the specific terms with them, they must provide a copy of this Order to petitioners, who must review 
and acknowledge their receipt of, and agreement to abide by, the terms of the Order. Counsel for 
petitioners must promptly provide a copy of that acknowledgment to the USAO. 
(d) 
If any individuals who have been identified by the USAO as victims of 
EFTA00232308

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 26 
Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2008 
Page 2 of 2 
Epstein and/or any attomey(s) for those individuals request the opportunity to review the 
Agreement, then the USAO shall produce the Agreement to those individuals, so long as those 
individuals also agree that they shall not disclose the Agreement or its terms to any third party 
absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard 
(e) 
Prior to producing the documents to any other individuals who have been 
identified by the USAO as victims of Epstein and/or any attomey(s) for those individuals, a copy 
of this Order must be provided to said individuals, who must review and acknowledge their receipt 
of, and agreement to abide by, the terms of this Order. Counsel for petitioners must promptly 
provide a copy of that acknowledgment to the USAO. 
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, 
this 21" day of August, 2008. 
KENNETH A. MARRA 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Copies furnished to: all counsel of record 
By signing below, 1 certify that I have reviewed and agree to be bound by the terms of this
Order. 
Dated: 
Signed by.  
Printed Name: 
2 
EFTA00232309

RECYCLED PAPER 
10 REORDER 
95.4.%44.939),
) 
EFTA00232310

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 28 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 
Page 1 of 8 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, 
Petitioners, 
v. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Respondent. 
VICTIM'S MOTION TO UNSEAL NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT 
COMES NOW the Petitioners, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, by and through their 
undersigned attorneys, pursuant to the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 
("CVRA"), and file this motion to unseal the non-prosecution agreement that has been provided 
to their attorneys under seal in this case. The agreement should be unsealed because no good 
cause exists for sealing it. Moreover, the Government has inaccurately described the agreement 
in its publicly-Sled pleadings, creating a false impression that the agreement protects the victims. 
Finally, the agreement should be unsealed to facilitate consultation by victims' counsel with 
others involved who have information related to the case. 
BACKGROUND 
As the court is aware, this action was brought by two crime victims (hereinafter referred 
to as "the victims") seeking protection of their rights under the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 
U.S.C. § 3771. At the center of this action is an agreement between the United States and Jeffrey 
Epstein that (as described in earlier court pleadings publicly filed by the Government) involved 
1 
EFTA00232311

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 28 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 
Page 2 of 8 
Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to various state charges and an 18-month jail sentence, in 
exchange for which the U.S. Government apparently agreed to defer all federal prosecution — 
including any federal prosecution for the federal crimes committed against the victims. 
At a hearing held on August 14, 2008, the court ordered the Government to produce to 
counsel for the victims the non-prosecution agreement. That production, however, was to be 
done under protective order in the first instance. The agreement has now been produced. At the 
earlier hearing, the court recognized that the victims' counsel might at a later date seek to have 
the sealing lifted. That date has now arrived. 
ARGUMENT 
As the court envisioned might well happen, counsel for the victims now believe that 
sealing of the agreement is no longer appropriate. The non-prosecution agreement should now 
be unsealed for three reasons. 
1. 
No Good Cause Has Been Shown for Sealing the Agreement. 
Having now reviewed the agreement, counsel for the victims can find no 
legitimate basis for the document to be sealed. Because it stands at the center of this litigation 
(as well as several related civil suits), the burden should fall on those who would keep the 
document sealed to show cause for doing so. No good cause has yet been shown. Cf. United . 
States v. Ochoa-Vasque, 428 F.3d 1015 (11th Cir. 2005) (to justify sealing of court records "a 
court must articulate the overriding interest along with findings specific enough that a reviewing 
court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered"). 
2. 
The Government Has Inaccurately Described the Agreement. 
In its publicly-filed pleadings in this case the Government has inaccurately 
2 
EFTA00232312

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 28 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 
Page 3 of 8 
described the non-prosecution agreement, creating the false impression that it is more favorable 
to the victims than it actually is. Accordingly, the non-prosecution agreement should be unsealed 
so that the true state of affairs is reflected in the court's file. 
In its response to the victims' petition, the Government states that the non-
prosecution agreement contains the following provision: 
Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an 
offense enumerated in Title 18, United states CrYIP, Section 2255; 
will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she 
would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and 
convicted of an enumerate offense. For purposes of implementing 
this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's 
attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name 
in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. 
Epstein. 
Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, 
including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if 
any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the 
parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they 
would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No 
more; no less. 
Govt's Resp. to Victim's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Right at 4. The 
sworn declaration of the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling this matter also recounts the same 
language. See Declaration of 
in Support of United States' Response to 
Victims' Emergency Petition at 3-4. The sworn declaration also states that victims were told 
about this language in October 2007. See Declaration of 
at 4 ("In October 
2007, shortly after the agreement was signed, four victims were contacted and these provisions 
were discussed"). On July 9, 2008, the victims received notice from the Government that the 
above-described provision was negotiated on behalf of the victims for their protection and was 
3 
EFTA00232313

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 28 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 
Page 4 of 8 
thus contained in the non-prosecution agreement 1 
Having now reviewed the non-prosecution agreement, the Government's response 
to the victims' motion and the accompanying sworn declaration are simply untrue. The above-
quoted provision simply does not appear in the agreement anywhere. It is true that the non-
prosecution agreement contains a provision bearing on the same subject. 
However, this 
. provision has a number of qualifying provisos that make it far less favorable to the victims than 
the above-described provision. (To avoid filing a separate, sealed pleading laying out the 
differences, counsel for the victims have simply described the differences in general terms. We 
trust that the Government, in its response, will agree that it has erroneously described the 
agreement to the court and the victims.) 
The Government should be required to correct its previously-filed pleadings to 
accurately recount the non-prosecution agreement that it reached with Epstein. Moreover, the 
Government should also be required to state forthrightly whether through the last nine months, it 
gave the victims (like the court) inaccurate information about what the non-prosecution 
agreement entailed. But most important, because the current sealing of the non-prosecution 
agreement creates a false and deceptive appearance about the agreement that the Government has 
actually reached with Epstein, the agreement should be unsealed. 
Indeed, it should be noted that sealing of materials in this case appears to operate 
in a rather peculiar fashion. The Government apparently feels free to disclose to the victims one 
provision in the non-prosecution agreement that it believes it is to its advantage to disclose, but 
not others. The Government should not be permitted to pick and choose, particularly where  it 
I The Government has recently provided a new notice to the victims, containing different language. 
4 
EFTA00232314

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 28 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 
Page 5 of 8 
has inaccurately described the provision that it has chosen to disclose. 
3. 
The Non-Prosecution Agreement Should be Unsealed To Facilitate Effective 
Regresentation of the Victims in this Action and Related Civil Actions. 
The scaling order bars the victims' counsel from "disclos[ing] the Agreement or 
its terms to any third party absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for 
Epstein's counsel to be heard." Order to Compel Production and Protective Order at 1. Victims' 
counsel have scrupulously abided by that restriction. Victims' counsel would, however, now like 
to discuss the terms of the non-prosecution agreement with third parties in making a 
determination about how best to proceed in this action, including what remedies to seek for the 
violations of victims' rights that have occurred. Counsel, therefore, respectfully seek the "further 
court order" that the sealing order envisions, 
In particular, victims' counsel would like to discuss the agreement with other 
victims of Epstein and their attorneys to determine whether they were likewise provided with 
inaccurate information about the nature of the plea agreement. Victims' counsel would also like 
to discuss possible legal responses to the Government with other victims' rights attorneys, 
including in particular the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys for possible legal 
approaches. See htto://www.ncvli,ortzThavra.html. The sealing order would apparently block 
these forms of consultation, or perhaps require such burdensome non-disclosure obligations as to 
make the consultation difficult or impractical. Finally, victims' counsel would like to refer to the 
non-prosecution agreement in a parallel civil suit that is pending before this court. See Jane Doe 
v. Jefrey Epstein, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No.: 08-CIV-
-_8089.3.MARRAJORNSON. To facilitate all-these dim cssions, the 
 
 
agreement 
5 
EFTA00232315

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 28 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 
Page 6 of 8 
should be unsealed. 
NOTICE TO EPSTEIN 
It is possible that Jeffrey Epstein will object to the unsealing of the agreement. 
Accordingly, the court should provide notice of this motion to Jeffrey Epstein, through counsel. 
Jeffrey Epstein's counsel has entered an appearance in several related civil suits, including Jane 
Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No.: 08-
CIY-80893-MARRAJOHNSON. Although Epstein's counsel has not entered an appearance in 
this matter, as a courtesy to them, counsel for the victims' will provide a copy of this pleading at 
the address indicated in the related civil suit. 
CONCLUSION 
The non-prosecution agreement should be unsealed. 
DATED this 25th day of $entember 2008. 
Respectfully Submitted, 
THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS & 
ASSOCIATES, LLC 
By: 
s/ Brad Edwards 
Brad Edwards, Esquire 
Attorney for Petitioners 
Florida Bar No. 542075 
2028 Harrison Street 
Suite 202 
Hollywood, Florida 33020 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
E-Mail: 
6 
EFTA00232316