EFTA00184224

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 41 of 57 
129. Later on July 9, 2008, the line prosecutor sent a response back to Goldberger, 
explaining how 
intended to keep the victims from having access to the terms of the NPA: 
Without such an express Acknowledgment by Mr. Epstein that the notice contains 
the substance of that Agreement, 1 believe that the victims will have justification 
to petition for the entire agreement, which is contrary to the confidentiality clause 
that the parties have signed.145
130. On July 9, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent victim notification letters to Jane 
Doe 1 and Jane Doe 5, via their attorney, Mr. Edwards, and to other identified victims of Epstein. 
That notification contained a written explanation of some of the civil compensation provisions of 
the NPA. The notification did not provide the full terms of the NPA. For example, the 
notification did not disclose the NPA or the immunity for "other potential co-conspirators" of 
Epstein.146
131. On July 10, 2008, Epstein's counsel continued to protest victim notification as 
evidenced by Goldberger's email to the line prosecutor stating, "we respectfully request a 
reasonable opportunity to review and comment on a draft of the modified notification letter you 
intend to mail before you send it."147
132. On July 11, 2008, the Court held a hearing on Jane Doe 1's petition and, with the 
stipulation of the Government, added Jane Doe 2 as a petitioner because she was a recognized 
crime "victim." The Court unsealed a declaration that the line prosecutor had filed in response to 
the petition, and because the declaration contained one paragraph of the NPA, that paragraph 
145 REP WPB 000526.000527 (Exhibit 114). 
''16 000777-000779 (Exhibit 115); 000774-000776 (Exhibit 116). 
" 1 REP WPB 000535-000537 (Exhibit 117). 
41 
EFTA00184264

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 42 of 57 
became unsealed. The line prosecutor sent an email to Goldberger informing him of the 
unsealing of that one paragraph.148
133. During the July 11, 2008 hearing, the Government conceded that the NPA had been 
concluded months before the victims were notified about it.149
134. Throughout July 2008, Epstein's attorneys and the Government continued to 
correspond about issues such as subpoenas related to his computers and returning of his 
property.'" 
135. On August 7, 2008, the line prosecutor emailed one of Epstein's defense attorneys, 
Roy Black, notice of the motion to disclose the NPA to the victims and assured him that the 
Government intended "to oppose the motion based upon the confidentiality provision."'" 
136. On August 10, 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed a motion seeking release of the 
NPA. t52 
137. Immediately after the motion was filed, the Office coordinated with another Epstein 
attorney about how to best object to the motion.153
138. On August 11, 2008, Roy Black wrote back to the line prosecutor, thanking the 
Government for "agreeing to oppose any disclosure of the 9/24/07 agreement."'" 
14B REP WPB 001845 (Exhibit 118). 
149 See Exhibit 63 at 12 (". . . the agreement was consummated by the parties in December of 2007."); see also 
Exhibit 62. 
ISO REP WPB 000470-000471 (Exhibit 119); RFP WPB 000481-000489 (Exhibit 120); RFP WPB 000547 (Exhibit 
121). 
151 [DE 19] (Exhibit 122); RFP WPB 001825 (Exhibit 123). 
152 Exhibit 122. 
153 RFP WPB 001820-001838 (Exhibit 124). 
154 RFP WPB 001819 (Exhibit 125). 
42 
EFTA00184265

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 43 of 57 
139. Between August II and 14, 2008, the line prosecutor attempted to obtain a copy of 
the NPA that Epstein's counsel had filed in state court.155 After receiving a copy, on August 14, 
2008, the line prosecutor wrote to Lefkowitz: "I can no longer argue that the Court shouldn't 
force us to produce the agreement because we have already provided the victims with the 
relevant portion when I now understand from you that I have NOT provided them with the 
relevant portion." 56
140. Further communications ensued between the line prosecutor and Epstein's counsel 
about what exactly was contained in the NPA—specifically, whether a December modification 
to the agreement was part of the NPA. The notification to the victims about the civil restitution 
provisions had quoted from the December language.157
141. On August 14, 2008, the line prosecutor emailcd Epstein's counsel stating that the 
court has "ordered us to make the Agreement available to the plaintiffs.i158
142. On August 15, 2008, the line prosecutor sent a letter to Epstein's counsel confirming 
that recent correspondence was intended "solely to determine what Mr. Epstein considered to be 
the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement" so that the Government would know exactly what 
needed to be produced to the victims in this CVRA case.159
143. On August 18, 2008, Lefkowitz wrote the line prosecutor that Epstein objected to 
disclosure of the terms of the NPA, but that Epstein would "cooperate with the government to 
reach an agreement as to substance of the notification to be sent to the government's list of 
155 RFP WPB 001809-001818 (Exhibit 126). 
56 RFP WPB 001804 (Exhibit 127). 
157 RFP WPB 001805-001808 (Exhibit 128). 
158 RFP WPB 001798 (Exhibit 129). 
Exhibit 68; REP WPB 000575-000576 (Exhibit 130). 
43 
EFTA00184266

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 44 of 57 
individuals. Based on the Agreement, the information contained in the notification should be 
limited to (1) the language provided in the Agreement dealing with civil restitution (paragraphs 
7-10) and (2) the contact information of the selected attorney representative. We object to the 
inclusion of additional information about the investigation of Mr. Epstein, the terms of the 
Agreement other than paragraphs 7-10 and the identity of other identified individuals." 160
144. On August 21, 2008, the Government sent a letter to Epstein's counsel stating that, 
"[clopies of the victim notifications will continue to be provided to counsel for Mr. Epstein." 
The letter further requested substantive objections to the draft notification letters, which were 
being re-sent "[bjecause I previously provided the victims with incorrect information—albeit 
with the approval of Mr. Epstein's counsel—it is imperative that I correct the error promptly.»161 
145. On August 26, 2008, the Government sent another letter to Epstein's counsel stating, 
"Mr. Goldberger and Mr. Tein explicitly approved the language in my earlier victim notification 
letter, even though they apparently were taking the position that the December 19, 2007 letter 
was not part of the Agreement, so that misinformation was provided to the victims with the 
approval of Mr. Epstein's attomeys.s162 
146. Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 were not informed of the contents of the NPA until 
August 28, 2008, when the line prosecutor provided a copy to Mr. Edwards.'63
147. On September 2, 2008, nearly a year after the NPA was signed, the line prosecutor 
sent an email to Epstein's counsel stating, "I will start sending out the victim notifications today. 
160 REP WPB 000581-000583 (Exhibit 131). 
161 RFP WPB 000587-000588 (Exhibit 132). 
162 RFP WPB 000603-000604 (Exhibit 133) (emphasis in original). 
16) REP WPB 001776 (Exhibit 134). 
44 
EFTA00184267

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 45 of 57 
In accordance with your request, I have changed the language regarding the victims' right to 
receive a copy of the Agreement.i164
148. On September 2 and 3, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent to Jane Doe 1 and other 
identified victims amended notification letters correcting the earlier inaccurate information about 
the civil compensation provisions contained in the earlier notifications.165
149. The victim notification letters that the victims received were confusing. They did not 
directly state that Epstein's crimes against them were not going to be prosecuted, but instead said 
that "the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state prosecution." 
The letter did not inform the victims of how this applied to them.'" 
150. The victim notification letters also state that there was "litigation between the United 
States and two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement between the United 
States and Mr. Epstein." The letters did not explain that the remedy being sought in the litigation 
was not just to get "disclosure" of the agreement, but instead to uphold the rights of Epstein's 
victims.167
151. On September 16, 2008, the Palm Beach Daily News wrote the State Attorney's 
Office that it had "recently discovered" the NPA and wanted to know what was in it. The State 
Attorney's Office wrote the line prosecutor inquiring how to respond.168
152. On September 16, 2008, attorney Jeffrey Herman, who represented several Epstein 
victims, wrote to the line prosecutor to strenuously object to the restitution procedures 
164 RIP WPB 001775 (Exhibit 135). 
165 September 3, 2008 Victim Notification Letter to Jane Doe I (Exhibit 136); Exhibit 2; Exhibit 94 at 2-3. 
166 Id.; Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27. 
167 id
I" 002343-002344 (Exhibit 137). 
45 
EFTA00184268

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 46 of 57 
established in the NPA after learning that another attorney established through the NPA would 
be making unsolicited contacts to the victims. Mr. Herman explained that the notification letters 
were "misleading" because they referred generally to a waiver of "any other claim for damages" 
without informing them that this waiver might include a valuable punitive damages claim against 
an alleged billionaire.I69
153. On September 17, 2008, the line prosecutor sent an email to State Attorney 
M
, explaining that the NPA "contain[ed] a confidentiality provision that require[ed] us to 
inform Mr. Epstein's counsel before making any disclosure."170
154. On September 18, 2008, attorney Katherine Ezell representing some of Epstein's 
victims emailed the line prosecutor, asking whether the NPA was "blessed" by Judge Marra. 
The line prosecutor emailed back: "As far as I know, Judge Marra has not ever seen the 
agreement or these notification letters.... I don't know if the sentencing judge ever reviewed it. 
The letters were reviewed by my office and Jay Lefkowitz and Roy Black before they went 
out."I71
155. In 2010, Jane Doe 1 met with the new U.S. Attorney, 
She explained 
to him how the NPA had been concealed from her. Nothing ever came of the meeting, and Mr. 
has continued to fight efforts by Jane Doe 1 and other victims to have the court declare 
that their rights were violated while the NPA was drafted and implemented.172
169 m.
70 RFP WPB 001773 (Exhibit 138). 
171 RFP WPB 001763 (Exhibit 139). 
172 Exhibit 26; Tr. Nov. 23, 2015 (Exhibit 140) at 3-5 (U.S. Attorney's Office argues that the victims are "complicit" 
in their own sexual abuse and therefore cannot receive any remedy undcr the CVRA). 
46 
EFTA00184269

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 47 of 57 
156. At all times material to this statement of facts, it would have been practical and 
feasible for the federal government to inform Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Ms. =, 
Jane Doe 5, 
and all other similarly-situated victims of the details of the proposed NPA with Epstein, 
including in particular the fact that the agreement barred any federal criminal prosecution of 
crimes that Epstein committed against them.," 
157. At no time while it negotiated and executed the NPA did the Government notify the 
victims that Epstein's guilty plea would prevent his prosecutions for crimes against them. Nor 
did the Government ever allow the identified victims to "confer with the prosecutor on the case," 
18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5), or "treat them with fairness, respect and dignity" by making them aware 
of the NPA, § 3771(a)(8). In fact, to the contrary, the Government went to great lengths to 
conceal the fact that there was a federal resolution at all and mislead the victims into believing 
that the federal case was proceeding so that the NPA could be secretly put in place before the 
victims knew what was going on.174
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 
INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW 
In light of the foregoing undisputed material facts, summary judgment for the victims on 
the issue of whether their CVRA rights were violated is appropriate. The Court is well aware of 
the applicable summary judgment standard, which requires that there be no disputed issues that 
are genuine or material for the moving party to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, 
e.g., Joseph v. Napolitano, 839 F. Supp. 2d 1324, 1333 (S.D. Fla. 2012). The undisputed facts 
" 3 See Exhibit 88. 
IM Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 101; Exhibit 102; Exhibit 
57; Exhibit 7. 
47 
EFTA00184270

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 48 of 57 
here plainly establish that the Government—with the knowledge of, and at the urging of 
Epstein—violated the CVRA rights of Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly-situated 
victims, by deliberately concealing from them the NPA barring the prosecution of Jeffrey 
Epstein and his co-conspirators for the federal offenses they committed against them. 
In 
particular, the Government violated the victims' right to confer with prosecutors, right to 
accurate notice of court hearings, and right to be treated with fairness. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5), 
(2), & (8). 
A. 
The Government Violated the Victims' Right to Confer. 
There can be no real debate that the Government violated the victims' right to confer. 
Indeed, it is worth recalling that in earlier proceedings, the victims filed a similar (although less 
detailed) motion for summary judgment. DE 48. The Government responded not by claiming 
that it had in fact conferred with the victims, but rather by advancing the legal argument that the 
CVRA does not extend any rights to victims before the filing of an indictment. DE 62. This 
argument was flatly contradicted by the Government's own earlier decision to provide 
notification to victims after the NPA was signed — and even during the investigation treating 
them as victims. See, e.g., ¶¶ 10-16, 34-35, 69-73, 91-94, 98, 125, supra. In any event, this 
Court has now firmly rejected the Government's contrived legal position. DE 99 (the court has 
determined "that as a matter of law the CVRA can apply before formal charges are filed").175
115 Not only has this Court rejected the Government's position, but Congress and the President have specifically 
decided to end any debate and to codify this Court's ruling into federal law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(9) (victims 
have the "right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement") (added as 
part of Pub. L. 114-22, Title I, § 113(a), (c)(1) (May 29, 2015)). This codification builds on the fact that Senator 
Kyl, the Senate co-sponsor of the CVRA, took to the Senate floor to directly express his approval of this Court's 
ruling. 157 Cong. Rec. 57060.01 (statement of Senator Kyl) (Nov. 2, 2011) (applauding this Court's decision and 
48 
EFTA00184271

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 49 of 57 
The Government's inability to demonstrate that it afforded victims their right to confer is 
unsurprising. Under the CVRA, identified crime victims are granted "the reasonable right to 
confer with the attorney for the Government in the case." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). In some 
cases, there might be a debate about how much conferring is "reasonable" for the prosecutor to 
undertake. But here, no such debate is possible for the simple reason that the Government 
simply concealed that it was planning to enter into an agreement blocking the federal prosecution 
of Epstein from more than 30 of Epstein's identified victims. See, 
,
17, 32-33, 38, 41, 44-
46, 66, 71-72, 87-88, 95, 102, 113, 123, supra. 
Whatever other rights the CVRA extends to crime victims, it surely extends the simple 
right to know when the Government is entering into a deal with a sex offender blocking his 
prosecution for crimes committed against them. See, e.g., ¶ 155, supra. Ilere, the Government 
violated the victims right to confer during at least three separate time periods: (1) on and before 
September 24, 2007, when the Government was negotiating and signing the NPA; (2) in and 
around January 2008, when it sent letters telling the victims not about the previously signed 
NPA, but rather counseling "patience" while the Government finished its "investigation;" and (3) 
in and around June 30, 2008, when the Government didn't tell the victims that the state plea 
would effectively extinguish their rights to ever see Epstein prosecuted. See ¶¶ 17, 32-33, 38, 
41, 44-46, 66, 71-72, 87-88, 95, 102, 113, 123, supra. 
noting its "careful[] review" of the issues). 
49 
EFTA00184272

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 50 of 57 
Simply put, the NPA barred prosecution of the federal sexual offenses that Epstein had 
committed against Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly-situated victims. Under the 
CVRA, the victims were entitled to confer about this disposition and attempt to persuade 
prosecutors to reach a different result. Recognizing a right to confer about such dispositions is 
"not an infringement ... on the government's independent prosecutorial discretion; instead, it is 
only a requirement that the government confer in some reasonable way with the victims before 
ultimately exercising its broad discretion." In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 395 (5'h Cir. 2008) 
(internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). 
The victims fully understand that if they had conferred with the Government, the 
prosecutors could possibly have ultimately reached the same kind of agreement. But there is 
good reason to believe that if the prosecutors had exposed their dealings to scrutiny by Jane Doe 
1, Jane Doe 2, and the other victims, they would not have reached such a sweetheart plea deal. 
See ¶¶ 121-23, supra. For example, despite the fact that this case has been in litigation for more 
than seven years spanning several hundred pleadings, the Government does not write even a 
single sentence explaining why it entered into an NPA with a sex offender who had committed 
hundreds of federal sex offenses against young girls. Perhaps there is some reason for this 
extraordinary leniency. But if so, the Government has yet to offer it. In any event, regardless of 
the ultimate consequences of conferring, Congress promised to all crime victims—including Jane 
Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly-situated victims—that they would be able to confer with 
prosecutors before a disposition was reached in their case. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5). The victims 
never received that congressionally-mandated opportunity. 
50 
EFTA00184273

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 51 of 57 
In sum, the Government repeatedly violated the victims' CVRA right to confer — and 
did so at the specific request of Jeffrey Epstein. Summary judgment is thus appropriate on this 
basis. 
B. 
The Government Violated the Victims' Right to Be Treated With Fairness. 
The Government also violated the victims' "right to be treated with fairness and with 
respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). Entirely apart from 
whether the victims had any right to confer with prosecutors, at a bare minimum they had a right 
to be treated fairly and not be deceived by the Government. Yet here the Government repeatedly 
and deliberately misled the victims about what was happening in their case, concealing from 
them the NPA's negotiation and all of the terms it ultimately contained. As with the violation of 
the right to confer, these violations occurred at multiple points in the process, including the time 
before the NPA was signed, after the NPA was signed, and when Epstein was entering his State 
court guilty plea. 
A clear-cut example of the Government's violating the victims right to be treated fairly is 
its remarkable decision in 2008, well after the NPA had been signed, to send the victims (and, in 
some cases, their attorneys) deceptive information that the case "is currently under investigation" 
and that "[t]his can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we 
conduct a thorough investigation." See ¶¶ 91-103, supra. When the Government fmally did 
inform the victims about what had happened, the notifications were not only incomplete and 
inaccurate, but they also arrived too late for the victims to do anything about the deal. 
Specifically, it was too late to confer with the prosecutor or attend the sentencing hearing. See ¶¶ 
12448, supra. Most important, the notifications did not inform the victims that a NPA had been 
51 
EFTA00184274

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 52 of 57 
signed with Epstein, preventing federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida (and thus, 
as a practical matter, any prosecution for most of the victims) for the crimes he and his co-
conspirators had committed against them. The notification letters also described this litigation as 
"the disclosure" of the NPA, rather than its true purpose of vindicating the victims' rights and 
securing for the victims a right to confer about prosecuting Epstein free from the backdrop of the 
NPA. See ¶¶ 145-48, supra. 
The foregoing facts provide numerous other examples of the victims not being treated 
fairly. These examples include, but are not limited to: 
• 
Secretly discussing with Epstein's defense counsel contrived charges to avoid making 
victim notifications (¶¶ 17-22, supra); 
• 
Secretly discussing with Epstein's defense counsel arranging a guilty plea in a 
jurisdiction located some distance from the victims to make it hard for them to find out 
what was happening (¶ 23, supra); 
• 
Secretly reaching a resolution of the case that would make it hard for a judge to see what 
was going on (¶ 25, supra); 
• 
Not telling the victims the NPA was under consideration (¶¶ 41-47, supra); 
• 
Deviating from standard policy by negotiating with defense counsel about the extent and 
substance of crime victim notifications (¶ 49, supra); 
• 
Negotiating with defense counsel about concealing the agreement (¶¶ 48-58, supra); 
• 
Working to have agents attend Epstein's sentencing hearing "incognito" without telling 
the victims what was happening (¶ 58, supra); 
• 
Making a commitment to Epstein not to contact victims about the NPA (¶ 62, supra); 
• 
Entering into a NPA with a confidentiality provision that precluded compliance with 
CVRA victim notification obligations (¶¶ 65-69, supra); 
52 
EFTA00184275

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 53 of 57 
• 
Sending FBI agents to meet with three victims, while precluding the agents from being 
able to discuss the NPA (11 69-73, supra); 
• 
Agreeing with defense counsel to stop victim notifications required under the CVRA (¶y 
76-77, supra); 
• 
Agreeing to notify victims only after Epstein had entered his plea (11 80-81); 
• 
Sending deceptive letters about the case still being "under investigation" (11 91-94, 98); 
• 
Concealing the NPA from attorneys for the victims (¶¶ 100-02, 116-17); 
• 
Failing to provide reasonable notice of Epstein's sentencing hearing to the victims (¶y 
105-10); and 
• 
Agreeing with Epstein to oppose the release of the NPA to the victims after his plea (¶¶ 
134-36). 
The Government took all of these actions, it should be noted, with the knowledge of — and, 
indeed, at the insistence of — Epstein, the criminal who had sexually abused the victims. See 11, 
supra. 
The overarching point on many of these actions is that victims of crime are not treated 
fairly if prosecutors are deceiving them about what is going on with regard to prosecuting their 
abusers. Whatever else "fairness" might mean, it has to at least mean that the Government keep 
the victims properly informed and otherwise try to insure that their interests are respected in the 
criminal justice process. See 150 CoNG. REC. 7303 (Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl 
describing right to fairness in broad terms). The foregoing facts amply demonstrate numerous 
situations wherein the Government deliberately kept the victims in the dark about what was 
happening. Accordingly, the Government violated their right to fairness too and summary 
judgment is warranted on this independent basis as well. 
53 
EFTA00184276

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 54 of 57 
C. 
The Government Violated the Victims' Right to Reasonable and Accurate 
Notice. 
The Government also violated the victims' "right to reasonable, accurate and timely 
notice of any public court proceedings...involving the crime." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) (emphasis 
added). The Government may claim that it complied with this right by giving the victims notice 
of the state court proceeding in which Epstein pled guilty to sex offenses involving other girls 
less than one business day before the hearing.176 But the Government violated the victims' right 
to "reasonable" and "accurate" notice about this hearing. The Government concealed from Jane 
Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and all the other victims, that the NPA and the federal investigation were 
implicated in this hearing—and thus their right to see Epstein prosecuted was about to be 
permanently extinguished. As a result of this concealment, they missed their only chance to 
speak to the Court about the crimes committed against them and to see with their own eyes 
Epstein being sent to jail. Indeed, even afterwards, the Government continued to hide what was 
happening with regard to the NPA. See ¶¶ 124-148, supra. 
Importantly, one of the motives for this concealment was to avoid scrutiny by the 
victims—and the public—of what the Government was doing. See ¶¶ 121-23, supra. Jane Doe 
1, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly-situated victims of serious federal sex offenses did not attend 
Epstein's plea hearing and sentencing for the obvious reason that they thought it had nothing to 
do with them—which is precisely what the Government and Epstein were trying to accomplish 
t6 The Government also seems to argue that the CVRA did not apply to this hearing because it was held in state 
court. But the hearing was one "involving the crime" committed against the victims, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2), 
because the NPA was directly involved in the proceedings in state court. Because of the way the Government and 
Epstein had constructed the NPA, the state plea triggered the applicability of the federal NPA—and thus the CVRA. 
54 
EFTA00184277

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 55 of 57 
together. 
Whatever else might be said about one of the most extraordinarily lenient plea 
arrangements in American history, the Government simply failed to discharge its duty to 
Epstein's victims to provide "reasonable" and "accurate" notice about court hearings connected 
with their abuse. Summary judgment should therefore also be granted on this basis. 
CONCLUSION 
Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, once the Government had identified the victims of 
Epstein's sexual offenses, it had statutory obligations to them that it was legally required to 
respect. Despite those responsibilities to the victims, the Government chose instead to side with 
the man who had victimized them. Rather than properly inform the victims what was happening, 
the Government engaged in months of undisclosed plea negotiations with Epstein. Once the 
negotiations had produced a plea arrangement that was sufficiently lenient to be acceptable to 
Epstein, rather than tell the victims what had been agreed, the Government conspired with 
Epstein to conceal that agreement. The undisputed facts clearly show that, for months, the 
Government deceived the victims about the existence of this arrangement—deception that was 
necessary to permit the agreement to be consummated before the victims could object. 
Perhaps before Congress enacted the CVRA, such outrageous behavior could escape a 
judicial response. But Congress has now spoken. The Government has an obligation to confer 
with crime victims, to treat them fairly, and to provide them reasonable and accurate notice of 
judicial proceedings relevant to their victimization. To the contrary, the undisputed facts in this 
case show that the Government did not make any effort to extend to any of Epstein's dozens of 
victims any of the rights which Congress promised them. This Court is accordingly now 
55 
EFTA00184278

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLED Docket 02/10/2016 Page 56 of 57 
obligated to take all necessary steps to "ensure" that the victims' rights are protected. 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3771(b). 
This is not a close case. This is a summary judgment case. For all the foregoing reasons, 
the Court should find the Government violated the rights of Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and other 
similarly situated victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. If the Court grants their motion, 
the victims would then ask the Court to set an appropriate schedule for briefing and a hearing on 
the issue of the remedy for the violations of their rights. 
DATED: February 10, 2016 
Respectfully Submitted, 
Is/ Flaky 9. Sdeatela 
Bradley J. Edwards 
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, 
EDWARDS, FIS1'OS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 
Telephone (954) 524-2820 
Facsimile (954) 524-2822 
E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com 
And 
Paul G. Cassell 
Pro Hac Vice 
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the 
University of Utah.
332 S. 1400 E. 
Salt Lake City, UT 84112 
Telephone:801-585-5202 
Facsimile:801-585-6833 
'This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not 
intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah. 
56 
EFTA00184279

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 57 of 57 
E-Maikeassellpalaw.utah.edu 
Attorneys for Jane Does 1 and 2 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I certify that the foregoing document was served on February 10, 2016, on the following 
using the Court's CMIECF system: 
Dexter Lee 
Fax: 
E-mail: 
E-mail: 
Attorneys for the Government 
Roy Eric Black 
Jacqueline Perczek 
Black Srebnick Koms 
& Stumpf 
Fax: 
Email: 
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein 
Is! Slzeteetees 52. ecleesauta 
57 
EFTA00184280

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-1 Entered on FLED Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 7 
EXHIBIT 
1 
EFTA00184281

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 7 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Jay P. Le?limit, P.C. 
To 
• 
: 
VIA E-MAIL 
United States Attorney's Office 
Southern District of Florida 
Dear M: 
AND AINUATED PARITURSHIFS 
Cill rou Center 
vorw.kirkland.com 
October 10, 2007 
Re: Jeffiey Epstein 
Facsimile: 
Dir. Fax 
Confidential. For Settlement 
Purposes Only, Pursuant to Rule 408. 
I write as a follow up to our conversation yesterday regarding the open issues that remain 
',
stein matter. As you are aware, we continue to have serious disagreements with Ms. 
regarding the nature of the settlement process for identified individuals' § 2255 claims. 
Legal representation in a lawsuit was never contemplated by the Federal Plea Agreement (the 
"Agreement"). 
Over the course of the negotiations of the Agreement, the parties worked 
diligently to create an alternative dispute resolution for those identified individuals seeking a civil 
remedy for the conduct at issue, in an effort to avoid long drawn out disputes over liability in 
public adversarial litigations. Initially, we proposed that Mr. Epstein create a trust whereby a 
trustee would be appointed by the Circuit Court to disperse the funds to the identified individuals 
based on a good faith showing of injury. In response, Ms. 
proposed the appointment of 
a guardian ad litem to represent the identified individuals, not an attorney, which suggests that 
litigation was never contemplated by either party. Ultimately, the parties agreed to Paragraphs 7 
and 8 of the Agreement, which allow for a single attorney representative to settle the claims of the 
identified individuals and create a procedural alternative to public adversarial litigation. 
In keeping with the parties' understandlaphs 
7 and 8, you should know that 
we are in agreement with your choice of Judge 
but we believe Judge 
should 
act as the attorney representative to settle claims pursuant to the Agreement and the parties' 
longstanding understanding of the settlement process. Because the process we have agreed to 
does not contemplate litigation with respect to the attorney representative, Judge 
can work 
to negotiate settlements with the identified individuals without further involvement by the 
government or its agents. Below, I've outlined our main areas of concern with the approach Ms. 
Chicago 
Hong Kong 
London 
Los Angeles 
Munich 
San Francisco 
Washington, D.C. 
RFP MIA 000001 
EFTA00184282

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 7 
Confidential. For Settlement Purposes Only, Pursuant to Rule 408. 
October 10, 2007 
Page 2 
has taken regarding the role of the attorney representative and the settlement process for 
§ 2255 c aims pursuant to Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement. 
First Issue: The Settlement Process and the Role of the Attorney Representative. The 
settlement procedure we propose, and which we believe is made clear by the Agreement, is 
reasonable and consistent with the intention of the parties: the attorney representative will 
represent the identified individuals provided they opt to enter into a settlement agreement with 
Mr. Epstein with respect to their § 2255 claims. The attorney representative will negotiate a total 
settlement amount with Mr. Epstein. Once the United States has formally declined to prosecute 
Mr. Epstein in this matter, and each identified individual electing to settle has waived her right to 
pursue any other claims against Mr. Epstein, the attorney representative will distribute the 
proceeds in the manner he sees fit. If the identified individuals cannot settle or opt not to settle on 
a damages amount with Mr. Epstein, then the attorney representative may not continue his 
representation and is barred from filing lawsuits pursuant to § 2255 and the identified individuals 
would not be suing under § 2255 as contemplated by Paragraph 8. 
Based on the specific language in the contract and the intent of both parties, we believe 
that the Agreement clearly provides that the identified individuals may opt to make use of the 
attorney representative so long as they can reach a settlement agreement with Mr. Epstein. If the 
parties cannot settle on a damages amount with Mr. Epstein, then the attorney representative may 
not continue his representation and is barred from filing lawsuits pursuant to § 2255. 
The provisions of the Agreement make clear that the role of the attorney representative is 
limited to settling claims brought by identified individuals pursuant to the Agreement. While 
Paragraph 7 defines who may be represented by the attorney representative, Paragraph 8 outlines 
the scope of that representation. Paragraph 7 states: 
The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified 
as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and has been 
sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and 
subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for 
these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified 
individuals through that representative. 
Under Paragraph 8 of the Agreement, which provides the terms of the representation, the 
attorney representative is only appointed to protect the interests of those identified individuals 
who elect to waive any claim for damages other than the damages agreed to by the parties. 
Paragraph 8 states: 
If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§ 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern 
District of Florida over this person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest 
liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the 
RFP MIA 000002 
EFTA00184283