EFTA00191264

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson 
JANE DOES #1 and #2 
I.
UNITED STATES 
JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS 
The parties hereby stipulate and agree that the following facts are not in dispute and may 
be accepted as true: 
1. Between about 2001 and 2006, defendant Jeffrey Epstein (a—billienaire—with—signifteant 
politieal-eenneetiens)-sexually-abusedinere-than-40 enticed into prostitution minor girls at his 
mansion in West Palm Beach, Florida, and elsewhere. Among the girls he sexually 
sed so 
enticed were Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. Because Epstein, through others, used a means of 
interstate commerce and knowingly traveled in interstate commerce to engage in this conduct, 
te-abuse-Jane-Dee-#4-en43ane-Dee-#2-(and-the-ether-vietims), he committed violations of federal 
law, specifically repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. 
2. In 2006, at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation ("FBI") opened an investigation into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") 
and his personal assistants had used facilities of interstate commerce to induce young girls 
between the ages of thirteen and seventeen to engage in prostitution, among other offenses. The 
case was presented to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, 
which accepted the case for investigation. The Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office was 
EFTA00191264

also investigating the-ease Epstein. See Declaration of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. at ¶¶ 1-2 
(hereinafter "Edwards Declaration"). 
The FBI determined that both Jane Doe 111 and Jane Doe 112 were ictims of aexual 025auh6 
by-Epstein-while-they-were-flinierS-iteginning-when-thest-wete-apprenimately-faufteen-years-ef 
age-and-apprenintately-thifteen-years-efage-respeetivelyrEdwards-1)eelaratien-at-11-2, 
4. On about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe #1 a standard-G-V-RA-victim 
notification letter. See Edwards Declaration, Exhibit "A." The notification promises that the 
Justice Department would makes its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe #1's rights, including 
"[tjhe reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be 
reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving . . . plea . . . ." The 
notification further explained that "[a]t this time, your case is under investigation." That 
notification meant that the FBI had identified Jane Doe #1 as a potential victim of a federal 
offense. and-as-senteene-preteeted-by-the-GVRA: 
5. On about August 11, 2007, Jane Doe #2 received a standard CVRA victim notification letter. 
See Edwards Declaration, Exhibit "B." The notification promised that the Justice Department 
would makes its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe #2's rights, including "[t]he reasonable right 
to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any 
public proceeding in the district court involving . . . plea ...." The notification further explained 
that "[a]t this time, your case is under investigation." That notification meant that the FBI had 
identified Jane Doe #2 as a potential victim of a federal offense. aftd-as-semeene-proteeted-by 
the CVRA.
6. Early-in During the investigation, the FBI agents and the Assistant U.S. Attorney had-several 
meetinga met with Jane Doe #1. Jane Doe #2 was represented by counsel that was paid for by 
EFTA00191265

the criminal target Epstein and, accordingly, all contact was made through that attorney. Jane 
Doe #2 was openly hostile to the investigation, and told investigators that she was not a 
victim of any offense, that Epstein was an "awesome man," and that she would consider 
marrying Epstein. Jane Doe #2 actively avoided law enforcement's attempts to secure her 
cooperation with the investigation and contacted other potential witnesses and victims to 
advise them against cooperating with the authorities. Edwards Declaration at ¶ 5. 
7. 
In and around September 2007, plea discussions took place between Jeffrey Epstein, 
represented by numerous attorneys (including lead criminal defense counsel Jay Leflcowitz), and 
the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of Florida.,] reptesentect-pciffier-ily-by 
Assistent-U7SrAttemey-Ar MaFie--WHefefier-ae-plea-diseussiens-genecally-begen-from-Ihe 
premise-that-Bpstein-weekl-plead-guilty-et-least-ene-federal-felefty-effense-suFfeunding-his-sexual 
tissaults-ef-mere-than-40-miner-girls. Frem-ther-er the-numereus-elefense-attecneys-pfegressively 
uegetiated—rnere—favemble—prea—lems—se—thet—gpsteiii—weuld—tiltimetely—plead These plea 
negotiations eventually resulted in Epstein pleading guilty to enly two state court felony 
offenses with a recommendation of 18 months' imprisonment. end-would-serve-only-emu:4y 
Meny-ef-the-negetietiens-Eife-refleetefl-in-e-mails-between-Leflte
lat 
Gepies Parts of the correspondence are attached as Exhibit J to the Edwards Declaration accompanying 
this filing (hereinafter cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced by Bates number 
stamp).' Because Epstein has moved to keep these documents from the public, they are at this 
time filed under seal with the Court. 
Threugh-ditigeot-effects7-e- Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received copies of half of the e-
mail correspondence (the half reflecting Villafatta's communications to defense counsel) via discovery 
requests served upon counsel for Epstein in connection with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's civil 
suits against Epstein on about June 30, 2010. See Edwards Declaration at ¶¶20-22. 
EFTA00191266

8. At the time of plea discussions, AUSA Villafana had drafted the-UnSrAttomeyls-Oirme-had 
an 82-page prosecution memorandum outlining numerous federal sexual offenses committed by 
Epstein, and had prepared drafted a 53-page indictment. fer-numereus-federal-effenses. U.S. 
Attorney's Correspondence at 4. 
9, 
le-8eptember4007r  Assimant-UTS,Attomey-eisrUSM-ArMarie-V-iflafahe7-in-an-effert-te 
aveld—preseeuting—Epsteint—fer—Ws—rmmereus—sexual—effenses—against—ohildrenr
 prepesed—te 
Epstein's attorneys that rather than plea to any oharges relating to him molesting children, 
Epstein—sheukl—Mstead-plead-to-a-single-assaul4-eharge-invetving-a-telephene-eall-made-b.y 
Epstein-kvhilerhe-was-en-his-privatejetrifanring-the-telephene-eal41-Epstein-ymmed-his-persenal 
assistentr  besley-Greffr against-turning-ever-doeuments-and-eleerrenie-evidenee-respensive-te-a 
subpeena-issued-by-a-federal-grend--jury-iti-the-Seuthern-Distriet-ef--Flerida—inmestigating 
Eirsteinls-sen-offensesrU7SrAttemeyls-Cerrespondenee-M-497-587 
7 
The-eerrespondenee-alse-shows-that-AUSA-Wilatana-was-Mterested-in-finding-a-place-te 
eonelude-a-plea-bargain-that-weuld-effeetively-keerthe-yietims-from-leaming-what-,was 
haPpening-througil- the-Pressr ghea
ftil-lo-flefense-oounsel-0411-an- avelE1-t
' 
he 
telephone-ealirlf-he-was-in-Mimi-Dade-Getinty-at-the-timer then-l-ean-file-Me-eherge-in4he 
Distriet-GOUn-in-Miemir  whieli-will-hopefully-mli-the-press-oeverage-signifteantly 
Atterneyls-Gerrespondenee-M-29,M5rVilktfaria-was-aware-that-most-of--the-vietims-ef-Epstein7
including Jane Doe //l and Jane Doe 112, resided outside the Miami area. 
On about September 24, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaha sent an e-mail 
to Jay Lefkowitz, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, regarding the agreement, a copy of 
which is attached hereto as Exhibit 
Dae-to-the-eonfidentiality-etaose-in-the-Agreentea4T 
EFTA00191267

the—e-moil—stetedi—that—the—Govemment—ond—Epstein1/2 —eeunsel—weekl—negettete—betwe
' 
en 
thesetyes-abeet-whot-infecmakien-weuld-be4iselesed-te-the-vietims-about-the-agreenienu 
T-haftk-yeur  Joy,--1-have-feewaFded-your-inessage-enly-te-Mex-fAeostqr Andy7
and-Rolandri-denit-antleipate-it-geing-any-fuither-than-thatr When-l-reeeive-the 
efiginalsr  I-will-sign-and-retutmene-eepy-te-your -The-ether-will-be-pleeed-in-the 
ease-Cder
 whieh-will-be-kept-eenfulential-sinee-i4-also-eontoifis-idenWng 
informatien-about-the-gifis7 
When-we-refteti-an-agreement-abeut-the-atteme representotive-fer-the-githr  we 
ean-diweues.-what-I-ean4611-him-and-fhe-giris-ebew-the-aretweettir I4new-that 
Andrpremised-Ghief--Reiter-an-update-when-a-resehuien-was-aeltieved 
Retande-is-eftilingr but-Relande-lenews-ne4-te-tell-Ghief--Reiter-about-the-money 
isuo, just about what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and the amount of 
time-that-has-been-agreed-ter Relantionulso-is-felling-Chief Reiier-not4O-diselose 
the-eufeente-fe-anyene 
4-2, On about September 25, 2007, AUSA Villafafia sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz, a copy of 
which is attached hereto as Exhibit 
stating.-11And-ean-we-itaye-a-eenferenee-edi-te-disesss 
what-I-may-diselese-to,the-gek-regarding-the-agreemenWl-U:SrAnemeyls-Cerrespondenee 
at-1-56: 
13. On about September 26, 2007, AUSA. Villafafia sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz, a copy of 
which is attached hereto as Exhibit 
in-whielt-she-etatedailiay—Can-you-give-me-a-eall 
at-564-209--Enentl-this-mentifte-1-am-nweting-widt-the-agents-and-want-to-give-them4heir 
marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls." U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 359. 
The reasonable inference is that the "marching orders" agreed to between the Government and 
Epsteinls-tiefense-eounsel-was-that-ne-mention-weuld-be-made-octhe-ROli-pfeseeutiewegreement 
between-the-U,SrAttertieyls-Gfflee-anii-Epsteiur  as-fie-subsequen4-inention-was-made-to-the 
vietims-of-the-nen-pcoseeutien-agreement, 
EFTA00191268

-14 
On about September 27, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafafia sent an e-mail 
to Leflcowitz regarding an attorney who was under discussion to be a representative of 
victims of Epstein civil litigation, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 
revealed 
te-an-atterney-filert-geariz-)r vihe-was-uader-4isettssien-te-be-a-representative-ef-vietims-ef 
Epstein-ls--sexeal-abuse-in-eivi-l-Litigatienr  that-the-gevemmerd-was-in-the-preeess-ef-reaehing-a 
nen-pfeseeulien-agreemeni-with-Epstein-
rli-e-Fflaikeenftrming-these-diselosures-stated
iertls 
firm-has-rai-sed-a-nember-ef-geed-gnestiens-about-hew-theaf0-geitig-te-tet-pai
l.k& 
denee-at-1-6-1,-The-e-maii--went-en-te-state÷-sl-teldat-that-as-part-ef-Otlf
Atterneyls-Cerrespen 
agreement-we-fthe-federal-gevemment)-are-net-gekt -te-indiet-MFrEwsteinr  but-give-him-afl-idea 
ef--the-ehaFges-that-we-had-planred-te-lyring-as-related-te-1-8-1
e-mail-alse 
aske4pennission from Epstein's counsel to send to Ooariz a copy of pans of the plea agreement: 
t2With-respeet-le-questien-2-4a-questien-frem-Geariz-regardieg*w}hen-v#111-14-be-pessible-te-see 
the-plea-agfeement-se-that-we-understand-exaetly-what-Epstein-eeneedes-te-in
e 
1-have-yeur-permissien-te-send-Bert-jest-that-seetien-ef-the-plea-agreement-that-appties-te-the 
demages-etaims-(4-weetd-reeemmend-sentting-paragraphs-7-threugh-1070r-at-least-7-and-8) 
4-5
4ali-abeet-SePlember-2-57400.7r AS14,arA-
ftfakt-sent-a-lettec-te4ey-lefkewitz--titat 
stated: in which she suggested that-the victims should be represemed by someone who was not 
an-expeFieneed-persenal-injery-attemey=tThey-fthe-ether-la
neler-eensideratienf 
very-geed-persenal-Miury-lawyersr  but-l-have-eeneerns-abest-whether-th
e-an-inherent 
tensien-beeaue-they-may-feel-that-they-might-make-mere-meney,n--if -they-preeeed-entsitte-the 
terns-of the pela agreement. (Sorry 
1-jual-have-a-bies-against-ptaintiffsz-atterneysel.687 
Attorney's Correspondence at 157. Villafana continued to push Oeariz as the best choice, in 
EFTA00191269

beeause4t-weukl-redttee-publiei
ne-niee4hing-about-Beft-feeafi*is-that-he4s-in-Miatni 
where-teheF-has-beea-almest-ne-eeverage-ef-the-eas
idr 
16. hi-a--letter-later-seftt-by-Jay-Lefkewitz--te-the-U,SrAuemey-fer-the-Seuihem-giStfie4-of 
Fie&lar  Lefkewitz-s4a+e44hat-ASIM-V-iBafafla-MEIAtssitiueusl
dden-fr-eni-hkn4he-faet-that 
Bert--Geatie-vms-a-friend-ef-V-illaftalals-beyftiewir Tr1787-Aueseyls-Gerfeepenflenee-at-2677 
Lefkowitz also stated that Villafafta had misleadingly used the term "friend" rather than the more 
aseufate-tenfflbeyfrienc122-te-41eseFibe-whe-hatl-reeeramen*led-Oeafizr-Mrat468r befkowita 
ftwther-state4-the-Wllafafiafrrbeyfr-ientl-had-a-busiaess-relatieaship-witli-Oeerie-autl-that-the 
beyfFiencl-weukl-have-anausielly-benekted-from-the-preaumably-luerative-refeypal-ef-sexual 
assauit-eeses-againet-Epstein-te-gear-4rOn—Deeember-1-3;-200-71-WIlefaria-wrete-a-letter-te 
Lefleawki-te-eleny-these-aeeusatiensr -the-letter7-Villefatia-stateelt
itu-sutzprised-by-yektr 
allegatiens-regarigrig-my-rele-beeause-l-thettght-that-we-Ilad-wecked-veFy-well-tegether-ie 
reseiving-this4ispeter i-elseram-surpr-isecl-beeaese-1-feel-that-1-bent-ever-backwarils-te-keep-in 
mind4he-effeet-that-the-agreement-weukl-have-en-MfrEpstein-and-te-make-sttre4hat-ytu-(entl-he) 
unclersteed-the-repereussiens-ef-the-agfeemeribt--kir 
17. 
On about September 24, 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office reached an 
agreement whereby the United States would defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by 
the State of Florida. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office accordingly entered into a "Non-
Prosecution Agreement" (NPA) reflecting their agreement. Most-signiffeentlyr  t The NPA gave 
Epstein a promise that he would not be prosecuted for a series of federal felony offenses 
involving the enticement into prostitution of a large number of minor girls. invoking-his 
seeual-abuse-ef-tnefe-thau-30-Fainer--girith The NPA instead allowed Epstein to plead guilty to 
two state felony offenses for solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for 
EFTA00191270

prostitution. The NPA also set up a procedure whereby a victim of Epstein's sexual abuse could 
obtain an attorney representative to proceed with a civil claim against Epstein, provided that the 
victim agreed to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (iTe7 which provided that the-each 
victim would recover agreed-to-seek no mere less than $150,000 in damages against Epstein — 
an amount that Epstein argued later was limited to no more than $50,000). See Edwards 
Declaration, Exhibit "C" (copy of the non-prosecution agreement). The agreement was signed 
by Epstein and his legal counsel, as well as the U.S. Attorney's Office, on about September 24, 
2007. 
18. 
A provision in the non-prosecution agreement made the agreement confidential secret. In 
particular, the agreement stated: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part 
of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any 
compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to 
Epstein before making the disclosure." Pot enter-ing-into-suell-a-eanctdentiality-agreement, the 
14-&-Attepneyls-Offiee-put-itself-M-a-pesitien-thet-Fretifying-the-er-ime-vietims-fineluding--Jane 
Doe ill and June Doe #2) of the non prosecution agreement would violate terms of the 
agreement—speeifteelly-the-eaufrdentiality-proyision,—AeeeFdiuglyr  frem-September-24r  200-7 
threugh-at-least-June-2008—a-period-of-meFe4hafFnifte-menths—the-U4-Artteratee-did 
not notify any of thc victims of the existence of the non prosecution agreement. 
497 
A reazonable inference from the evidence is that the U.S. Attorney's Office wanted the 
nea-meseemieri-agreement-kepr-frem-pulalie-view-beeause-ef-the-iniense-publie-eritieism-Mat 
would-have resulted from allowing a politically connected billionaire who had sexually abused 
more than 10 minor girls to escape from federal procccution with only a county court jail 
EFTA00191271

sentenee-oftel-beeause-ef-the-pessibility-that4he-vieties-eoulel-have-ebjeeted-te-the-agreement-io 
eeurt-and-preventeil-its-eensurnmatierh 
20. The Non-Prosecution Agreement that had been entered into between the U.S. Attorney's 
Office and Epstein was subsequently modified by an October 2007 Addendum and a December 
19, 2007, letter from the U.S. Attorney to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez. See Supplemental 
Declaration of A. Marie Villafafia, doe. #35, at 1; U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 234-37. 
The—‘65,4atemeyss—Offiee-414--rtet-ootify-ony-ef-the-viatims-ef--the-existenee-efr-theee 
metlifteatiens-of-the-agreement-threogli-at-leost4ofte4008—a-peried-of-RIOre-than-si*-mooths7 
On about August 14, 2008, Epstein's defense counsel told the U.S. Attorney's Office that they 
did not consider the December 19, 2007, letter to be operative. Id. 
21. 
In October 2007, shortly after the initial plea agreement was signed, Jane Doe #1 was 
contacted to be advised regarding the resolution of the investigation. On October 26, 2007, 
Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards met in person with Jane Doe #1. The 
Special Agents explained that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges, he would be required 
to register as a sex offender for life, and he had made certain concessions related to the payment 
of damages to the victims, including Jane Doe #1. During this meeting, the agents explained 
that this would end the federal investigation of the case and no federal charges would be 
tiled. the-Speeiel-Agents-41€1-net-explain-thet-an-agreement-hed-alfeaely-been-signed-thet 
preeluile€1-any-proseetitierref--Epotein-fer-federal-ehorges-The-agents-eoukl-oot-have-revealefl 
this pan of the non prosecution agroement without violating the terms of the non prosecution 
agFeementr-Whet-her-the-ogenis-themselves4a4-been--incortned-ef--the-exietenee-ef-the-ften-
preseeution-agreement-hy-the-LI47-Menwyls-Offiee-is-net-eertaior Reeause-the-plea-agreetnent 
EFTA00191272

had already been reached with Epstein, (ho agents made no attempt to secure Jane Doe ill's view 
on-the-preposed-resehitien-ef-the-easerEdwafds-Deelaratien-a4-11--7 
22. 
Jane Doe # l's perception of the explanation provided by the Special Agents was that only 
the State part of the Epstein investigation had been resolved, and that the federal investigation 
would continue, possibly leading to a federal prosecution. Edwards Declaration at ¶ 8. 
a 
On about November 27, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay 
Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 
The 
e-mail-statedt—that-the-1478,Atiemeyls-Offtee-lieel-an-ebligatieft-te-netify4he-vietims-about-the 
plea-area:korai 
The-Umile4-Siates4as-e-siesiery-obligatienasikeler-411-Aet-of-3-004)49-nefifr 
theviefims-oftheamieipated-upeemingevenm-and-their-righie-asseeitried-with-the 
agreenteni-entered-inte-by-she-Uniied-StaiesLimet-Alrr 
Tomeffew-vAll-make-one-foll-week-sinee-yea-were-fewnefir netified-ef -the 
seleetion,l-must-insist-that-the-vetting-preeess-eeme-te-on-enelr Theteferer  unless 
yeu-previde-wie-with-a-goed-faith-ebjeetien-te-Judgeneleetien-fas-speeiel 
master-foc-seleeting-legal-eounsol-fer-vietito-pocsolog-olaims-agaiost-Epsteinl-by 
GOB—temerrewr  Nevember—a8r  2007r
 1—will—autherize—the—rietifieatieti—ef—the 
vietiwisT,Should-teti-give-ine-the-ge-head-en-iktdhum4-aad-Jesetthsbefg-seleetien 
by-GOB-temoffewr i-%411-simoltarteeusly-sead-yeu-a4raft-ef-the-lefterr 
ffi
ftetify-thearietims-by-letter-after-GOB-Thursdayl-Nevember-29. 
UnSrAttemeyls-Gefrespendenee-at-2-5-5-(emphasis-rearrangeel* 
24. On about November 29, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafafia sent a draft of a 
crime victim notification letter to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The 
notification letter explained: "I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey 
Epstein has been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have reached an 
agreement containing the following terms . . .." The letter then went on to explain that Epstein 
would plead guilty to two state offenses and receive an 18 month sentence. The-lefter-did-fiet 
expleiw-that-res-part-ef-the-agreemeot-witli-Epsteiartheaistiee-Depaftffient-liacl-previeusiy-agreeel 
EFTA00191273

ftet-te-preseente-EpsieMier-any-ef-the-numereus-federal-offenses-that-had-been-eemmittedr 
Attemeyls-C-eFrespendenee-at-2-56-597 
25. Apparently-beeause-ef-eeneems-frern-SpsteinIs-atterneys; Because Epstein's attorneys 
sought higher review of the enforceability of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the U.S. 
Attorney's Office never sent the proposed victim notification letter discussed in the previous 
paragraph to the victims. Instead, a misleading letter stating that the case was "currently under 
investigation" (described below) was sent in January 2008 and May 2008. At-ne4inie-before 
reaehing-nen-proseeutien-agmement-did-the-Justiee-Deparnnent-emitast-any-vistimsr  including 
fer-example-Jane-Dee44-r abeut-their-views-en4he-nen-preseeutiem 
26. On about December 6, 2007, Jeffrey H. Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney sent a letter to 
Jay Lefkowitz,  a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 
neting-the
ttemeyie 
EpsteM-Ple-letter-stated+ 
Fiftally;-let-tne-address-yeur-objeetions-te-the-draft-Wetim-Netifieatien-6etier: 
31-eu-wfite-that-yeu-den4-widerstand-the-basis-fer--the-Offieers-betief--that-it-is 
appremiate-te-netify-the-vietimsr Fursuent-te-theslustiee-fer-A11-Ast-ef-2004 
fanother-name-frem-the-
Fivae-vietims-ffe-entitled-te
-right-te 
reasonabler aeenrater  and-timely-netiee-of-any-publie-mtuft-preeeeding, 
invelving-the-efimeLand-the-tright-not-te-be-exeludetl-frem-any-sueli-publie-eourt 
pmeeeding,--L--1-8-1.17,344-3-77-1-(02)-86-(3),Seetion-37-74-alse-eemmands 
that empleyees-af-the-DepaFtment-ef-Jestiee
engaged-in-the-deteetieni
investigatienr  er--preseentien-ef-erime-shall-mke-their-best-effects-te-see-Mat 
erime-vietims-Ofe-netified-afr  anel-aeeerdedr  the-Fights-deseribed-in-subeetien-(*)? 
18 U.S.C. § 3771(o)(1). . . . 
Qur-Nenaeseention-Agreement-resolves-the-federal-investigatien-by-allewing 
Mir Epstein-te-plead4e-a-state-effenser The-viefints-ide
reugh-thefetieral 
invesiigatien-shefeld-be-apprepplavely-infermetir
 and-eur-Nen-Preseeutien 
Agreement-dees--mst-require-the-417SrAttemeyls-Offiee-te-ferege-its-legal 
ebligatieny 
IrlArroMerneyls-Gerrespandenee-m-1-94-92-(emphasis-added)7 
EFTA00191274

27. Despite-this-reeegnitien-ef--iis-ebligolion-te-keep-vietin
apprepriately-infemedabout-the 
nen-pfeseeetien-egFeementr  the-U7SrAneFney1/2 -Offiee-did-net-fellew-threugtrand-i.nfortn-the 
irieties-ef-the-nen-preseetnien-agreement,To4he-oentfafyr  asAiseussed-belewr  it-eentineed-to 
tell-the*ietitne-that-the-ease-was-aunder-investigationMmilwar-do-Deoloratiewat-s-4-and41-1-2, 
28. 
On December 13, 2007, A. Marie Villafafia sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, defense 
counsel for Epstein„ a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit _.rebutting-ehafges-that 
had-apporently-been-mde-agoinst-her-by-the-Epstein-defenser-The-letter-stated-thet-a-feder-ol 
indietment-against-Epsteinwas-pestponed-fer-mare-than-fwe-nienths-te-all
yeu-and-Mf: 
Epsteinls-ether-attevneys-te-make-presentatiens-te-the-Offiee-te-eonvimee-the-Qtrtee-net-te 
preseeutell'--The-letter-alse-reeounted-that
-You-and-l-spent-lieurs-negotioting-the-tems-[ef -the 
fieli-preseestien-agreenclentir ineleding-when-te-use=aLmemus=the=and-etheriffrinetieer When 
you-and-i-eould-net-reoeh-agreenientr  yeu-repeotedirwent-ever-my-Ileadr  invelving-Messr* 
beefier  MeneheIr Siontanr  and-Aeoste-i.n-the-negetiatiens-at-vocieus-timeo." 
U.S. Attorney's 
Gerrespendenee-at-2697 
20,The-Deeember—Par  2007,-letier—alse-mveols-that-the-Jostiee-Deportment-stepped-coaking 
vietim-netifieations-beeause-ef-ebjeetiens-frem-Epsteinis-eFiminal-elefense-eeunseli-2-Three 
vietims-Viere-netifted-oheftly-after-the-signing-ef--the-Nen-Proseeutionagreement-ef-the-generet 
teFnis-ef--the-Agreetnefttr--Yote-mieed-objeetiens-ie-ony-vietim-nofifieotiom-ond-no-foNhor 
nefifiealieeis-were-dene
t4temeyls-Gerrespendenee-M-2-70-(eniphasis-added* 
30. 
Following the signing of the Agreement and the modifications thereto, Epstein's 
performance was delayed while he sought higher. level review within the Department of Justice. 
See U.S. Attorney's Correspondence passim. 
EFTA00191275

31. 
On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received letters from the FBI advising 
them that "[tJhis case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we 
request you'd continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." See Doc. #14 
(attachments 3 and 4 to declaration of A. Marie Villafafla) (emphasis added). The-statement-in 
the-netifteatien-leuer-wes-falserihe-eese-was-net-ettrrentlyunder-investigatien
-the 
eentrapyr the-ease-had-been-reselved-hy-the-nen-preseeutien-agreement-entered-inte-hy-Epstein 
and-the-U7SrAttemmis-offiee-diseuesed-previeuslyMereevefr the-FBI-eid-net-netify-Jane-Dee 
44-Of 4ane-Dee42-thet-a-plea-agreement-Iffid-befm-reaeheil-previeuslyr  and-thm-part-ef-the 
agreement-was-a-nen-preseemien-areement-with-the-U:Srismerney1/2 -Ofriee-fer—the-Seuthem 
Diewiet-ef-Fleficiar-Edwards-Deelaratien-at-4147 
32. 
Iii-early-2008r Jane-Dee4-1-anclane-Doe402-eame-te-believe-that-efiminalpreseeutiewef 
Epstein woo extremely important. They also desired to be oonsulted by the FR! and/or other 
representatives-ef-the-fedmal-gevemment-aheut-the-preseeutien-ec -Bpsteinr In-light-ef-the-lettem 
that they had received around January 10, they believed that a criminal investigation of -Epstein 
was on going and that they would be contacted before the federal government reached any final 
mseimien-ef-that-investigatienr Edwards-Deelaratien-at--11-147 
33. 
On about February 25, 2008, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay 
Leflcowitz„ a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit _.Bpsteinls—eriminal—defense 
eeunselr explaining that the Justice Department's Child Exploitation Obscenity Seotion (CEOS) 
had-agreeil-te-review-Bpstein1/2 -ehjeetiens-te-the--prepese4-plea-agFeement-that-hed-heen-reaehed 
with-theWatomeyls-Offiee-fer-the-Seuthem-Diemiet-ef--Flefidar The-letter-indiested-thah 
sheuld-GEOS-rejeet-Bpsteiels-objeetiens-te-the‘-agreementr thenMErEpsiein-shall-have-ene 
week-te-abkle-by-the-teens-and-eenditiens-ef-the-Septembef-24r  200;agFeement-as-amended-by 
EFTA00191276

lener-freni-Uniteil-Statesatterftey-osteesta-te-Jar heilfltecneys-Geffespentienee-at 
290 91. 
34. 
In about April 2008, Jane Doe #1 contacted the FBI because Epstein's counsel was 
attempting to take her deposition and private investigators were harassing her. Assistant U.S. 
Attorney A. Marie Villafana secured pro bono counsel to represent Jane Doe #1. Pro bono 
counsel was able to assist Jane Doe #1 in avoiding the improper deposition. AUSA Villafaila 
secured pro bono counsel by contacting Meg Garvin, Esq. of the the National Crime Victims' 
Law Center in Portland, Oregon, which is based in the Lewis & Clark College of Law. During 
the call, Ms. Garvin was not advised that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached. 
35. 
On May 30, 2008, another of Mr. Edwards's clients who was recognized as an a 
potential victim of Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI 
advising her that "fifhis case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and 
we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." The statement 
in-the-netifieetien-letter-wee-falser -The-ease-was-net-eurrentlyentler-investigatien
te 
eentretyr-the-ease-hati-been-reselved-by-theiten-preseentien-egreernent-enteced4nte-by-Epstein 
36. 
In mid-June 2008, Mr. Edwards contacted AUSA Villafaha to inform her that he 
represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. Mr. Edwards asked to meet to provide 
information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein, hoping to secure a significant federal 
indictment against Epstein. AUSA Villafruia and Mr. Edwards discussed the possibility of 
federal charges being filed. At the end of the call, AUSA Villafaula asked Mr. Edwards to send 
any information that he wanted considered by the U.S. Attorney's Office in determining whether 
to file federal charges. 
Because of the confidentiality provision that existed in the plea 
EFTA00191277

agreememr
 Mir Edwards—was—net—infeemed—that--peevieuslyr
 in—September-2007r the—LITS, 
Attemeyls-Offiee-liad-reaehed-on-ageeemen4-net-te-file-federal-ehorgesMfr-Edworels-wes-olse 
not-infermeel-that-reselution-ef-The-oriminal-rnaner--was-i.mminentr Edworels-Deektratien-alH-3, 
37. 
On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA Villafafia received a copy 
of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., 
Monday, June 30, 2008. AUSA Villafafia and the Palm Beach Police Department attempted to 
provide notification to victims in the short time that Epstein's counsel had provided. Attorney 
Edwards was called to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. ALISA-Villefafio-did 
net-tellattecney-Edwaeds-that-the-guilty-pleas-in-state-eeert-would-bring-on-end-to-the-pessibility 
of-federal-preseoutien-pustrant-te-the-pleo-agfeement,Edwards-Deolamtiem-at—II—Ph AUSA 
Villafafia strongly encouraged Attorney Edwards and his client to attend and address the 
Court at sentencing if they so desired. 
38. 
On June 30, 2008, AUSA Villafafla sent an e-mail to Jack Goldberger, criminal defense 
counsel for Epstein, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit _.that-statedi-ti-Jaek-The 
FRI-Iles-reeeived--seveml-ettlis-regardiag-theMen-Preseeutien—isrgreemenh--I—de—rlet—knew 
whethee-the-title-ef-ttte-deooment-was-diselesed-when4he-Agreemem-was-filed-under-sealr  but 
39. 
On July 3, 2008, Mr. Edwards sent to AUSA Villafafia a letter. See Affidavit of Bradley 
J. Edwards, Esq., at 15 (attachment 2). In the letter, Mr. Edwards indicated his client's desire 
that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, he wrote on behalf of his 
clients: "We urge the Attorney General and our United States Attorney to consider the 
fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move 
forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes 
EFTA00191278

Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our 
children from this very dangerous sexual predator." When Mr. Edwards wrote this letter, he was 
still unaware that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached with Epsteini.1 - a-feet-that 
eentinued-te-be-eeeeealed-fFein-hico-(and-the-vietims)-by-the
ttemeyls-Offieer Mr. 
Edwards first saw a reference to the NPA on or after July 9, 2008, when the Government filed its 
responsive pleading to Jane Doe's emergency petition. That-pleading-was-the-first-publie 
mention-ef-the-neit-preseeution-agreement-and-the-fifst-diselesere-to-MirE4wards-(ead-thus-te 
Jone-Dee-#4-and--Jene-Dee-#2.)-of-the-possible-existeiwe-of-a-nen-proseeutien-agreement, 
Edwards Declaration at ¶ 15. 
40. 
On July 9, 2008, AUSA Villafafta sent a victim notification to Jane Doe #1 via her 
attorney, Bradley Edwards. Edwards Declaration, Exhibit "H." That notification contains a 
written explanation of some of the terms of the agreement between Epstein and the U.S. 
Attorney's Office. A MI copy of the terms was not provided. A notification was not provided 
to Jane Doe #2 because the agreement limited Epstein's liability to victims whom the United 
States was prepared to name in an indictment. As a result, Jane Doe #2 never received a 
notification a letter about the agreement. The-rietifieation4id-net-nientieft-tlie-tieti-preseetttieft 
. Edwards Declaration at ¶ 16. 
41. On July 9, 2008, AUSA Villafafta filed a sworn declaration with the Court in connection 
with the case (doc. #14). The declaration purported to recount limit parts of the non-prosecution 
agreement and stated that "these provisions were discussed" with several victims, including Jane 
Doe #1. Id. at 4. 
42. 
On July 11, 2008, the Court held a hearing on Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Emergency 
Petition for Enforcement of Rights. During the hearing, the Government conceded that Jane Doe 
EFTA00191279

#1 and Jane Doe #2 were "victims" within the meaning of the Crime Victim's Rights Act. Tr. at 
14-15. 
43. aufhig-theally,-14Alearingr  the-Getin-atid-the-pafties-disetissed-the4eet-that-theiaetitien 
ohould not be treated as an "emergency" petition because there was not any particular rush to 
Feting-en-kr =Frr at4445,The-GetiFt-further4iseassed-a-need-te4liwfel-a-eemplete-reeer-dr  and 
this-is-geing-te-be-an-issue-thalls
geing4e-ge-teAe-Bleventh-Girouitr  (sbiti-nla)“be-better-to 
have-a-eemplete-reeerd-as4e-i,4hat-yeef-pesitien-is-and-the-governmentis-is-ftS4o-kiohat-aetions 
4freere4akenl —Anci - l - denItanes
.r if-l-have-metigh4nrefmatienr  base4-ena4s,V41.Anals-a.ffitlevit 
er-l-need-additienel-infetmationr—And-beeatise-it-is-fiet-en-emefgeneyr  1-denit-have-teAe 
somethingieieklyr  we-ean-play-iFbfyi-ear-and-niake4his-inte-a-mere-eemplete-reeer44or-the 
esuct-of-appeats
frat4S46,Gewisel4er-Jane-Dee414-and-Jane-Dee4a-e*ftlainedtlir., 
YOttf-Hener-is-eefreet4n-stating4h€4444s-net-en-emergeney“and44-deestilt-ti.ee4-te-liappen4e4ay7 
Andr  1-svill-eenfee-witli-the-goverftment-en-this-an€14f-evi4enee-needs4e4e4rakenr  it-Feen)4e 
taken-at-a4ater-daterit-deesnit-seem-like4hefea,411-be-any-preiudiee-te-anyt-petrt,-Efrem4elayF 
Trre446,The4teafing-eenetude&Se-P1-let-beth-ef-yea-eeefeeabeet-whether-there-is-aiteed 
fer-aftyc-additietial-eviflenee-te-be-preseniedr-Let-me4nes.,Lene-way-of-the-etherrWthere4s7 well4 
sehedule-a-heaFingrif 4her-e-isnit-and-)cetr want-to-submit-seme-additienal-stipu4ated4nfemetienT
de4hatr  and-then411-14ake-etwe-e.f4his-in-dee-eeurse
rrat42,The-C-eaft4heii-adjeufnedr taking 
the->oietims=petitieniindeeedvisement, 
44. The-lch8r764terneyts-effiee-ancl-the-lietime4hen-attempted4e-reaeh-a-stipulated-set-of-faets 
anderlying4he-easer The-W787,4.tterneyls-Offtee-sef,a-preposed-set-of-feetss-arid4he-..iietims-sent 
a-eeuffter-prepesal,Rather--than-respond-te-the-vietims=eetinter-prepesalr  hewevecr  the-U4, 
Attemeyls-Office-suddenly-reversed-eetirser (Doer #4V-at4),-On4aly49r  200-8r  it-fi4ed-a41etiee 
EFTA00191280

te-Geuct-Regardint-Absenee-ecNee€14ef-Evidentiafy-Heaping-(deer#1-7)r The-Geventmem-teek 
the-position-their  beee.use-ne-fetml-eriniinal-eharges-liad-been-fi4ed-in4he4euthem-Distfiet-ef 
Fierider  fte-additienal-evidenee-..,oes-requifed4e4eeide-the-petitien-befere4heCOMIT 
45. On—i4ugust-174008r  Jane-Dee-#4-and4ane-Dee42-filed-(deer-X1-9)-a-respense4e-the 
Gevernmentis-aNetieeA—FrF411e-respenser  Jane-Dee-iM-and4ane-Dee-ifa-gave-a-prepese4 
statement-ef-fasts-suFFeundin
the-easer The-prepese4-statement-ef-feet-was-based-en-the 
information available to the victims at that time. The proposed statement of facts highlighted the 
feet-that-the-Geverament-had-signed—a—nen-pfeseetnien—agreement—eentakting—ati—ewess 
eefffi4entiality-pfeidsienr  whieh-prevemed-the-Gevemnien44reni-diselesing-the-agfeement-te 
theni-itn4-eilief-vietiesr4d74it4,The-respense-ake-ne4ed4hat4he-GOtin-had4aken-the-vi.e4m.s! 
peti4ietruncier-edstisememr The-respense4unher-neted4hat-the-Gevemment-had-ftet-attempted4e 
werk-..,#itli-the--,#ietims4e-draft-a411-set-efAindisputed4aels-EtR4-kad4eNsed4he-Jo.ietimsLefferts4e 
ebtaitl-eleesments-relevant-te-the-easer idrat-9r -Mt Nietims-respense4Ise-requested4hat-the 
GOUft-direet-the-Geverament-te-eeefef-with4he-Jiietims-regareling-the-Effidisputed4ae4s-ef-the 
easer  ftreduee-the-nefl-preseeutief,i-agfeement-at-issue4n-the-easer  and-preduee-an4B1-Repe4-e.f 
intewiew-,.vitli-Jane-Dee4f1
The,-fesponse-alse-requested-tha4-the-Getlft-en4eFiudgment-fer-the 
%tietimeLfindint it-yielatiefref-Fights-aml-sehedule-ct-hear4rigethe-appfepfiate-remedyr le/rat-14, 
46. Cht-Augum-147-20087the-GOON-hel4-a4eaFing-en4he-ease,—Dering-that-heafiegr  the-U$7 
Atteme.sas-Offiee-eeneeded=twe-de4eel4eusd-b),-the-eenfi4eRtiatityprevisiefEsuell-thitt-we 
eeukl-net-velestefilrdiselese-this-nell-preseeutieft-agreement->A4itheut-eetwt-erder-eempel4ing-us 
te4e-se
rrat-87-Tlie-effiee4.6ent-eil-te4urther-eeneede4hat-it-eeeklilet-justiPfrdeprivin.wthe 
vietievref-the-eppeftunity4e-see4he-agreemen4,4drat-14,The-heafiffgeeneleded-witheut-any 
sehedule-Of4eadlines-hOint pat4n-plaee, 
EFTA00191281

47. Ori-Geteber-9r 2008r  Bfadley-J, Edwarilsr  seunsel-ferane-Dee-#-1-and-Jane-Dee-#2r sent- a 
letter-to-eoensel-for-the-
terneyzs-Offiee-iii--this-ease-aeivising-that-twe-pessibly-false 
statements-hael-been-made-te-thfrcetift2m-the-July-9th-swom-deeleration-of-ALISA-V4llefarlarigee 
Oetr9r  a048r Letter from Bradley J. Edwards to Marie Villafafia at 1, Edwards Declaration, 
Atetelvinent
-ir-str
 whi4e—Msr Wilefarla—liael—desevibetha—tenn—as-being-part-ef-the-plea 
agreeinesvith-Epsteiur  that-teen-later-beeeme-defauetr  itt-least-in-the-view-ef-Epsteie 
attemeys-Eantl-apparently-seeedesi-te-by-the-thSrAttomeyzs-Offiee)r-Seeendr  Msrliitlafefia-had 
sicid-that-21four-viet-ims-finetuding-kine-Doe-#4-bwere-eenteeted-entl-Mese-previsiens-were 
diseussede-it-wes•net-olear-what-provisiens-ktad-in-feet-been4iseussed7 
48. Orr Deeember-2-2r  200frAtASA-Mar-ieNillafana-frlecl-a-supplementel-affidavi
eeireetine 
the-stetement-inede-in-her-Juty-87-20083-deelerefien-about-ther-terms-of-the-plea-agreement-(dee: 
tt 
weer
 iii-the-Yiew-Epstein=legal-GettftSelr ile-lenger-operativer—The-supplementel—affidavih 
however, did not clarify what terms of the agreement had been discussed. 
49. On April 9, 2009, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 sent to the Court in this case 
(via the PACER system) a notice of a change of law firm affiliation. Doc. #37. 
50. 
hi—approximately—May-2009r  eounsekfer—Jene—Dee44—and—Jane—Dee—#2—propeundefl 
diseoveFy—request-s—in—bech—state—ttafi—fedecal—eivikeases—against—Epsteier  seeking—to—obtain 
eorrespendenee-hetween-Epstein-and-pfeseeutefs-regar4ing-his-piea-agreemem—infoFmatien-that 
the-6178-.-Attemey2s-Offiee-was-unwillingte-previfle-te-Jene-Dee4-1-and-Jane-Doe-#2,Espstein 
Fefused-te-preduee-that-infeimatieer  anfl-extended-kigation-to-obtain-the-materials-followed, 
Edwarels-DeelaFation-at4I407 
EFTA00191282

51. Beeause-ePthirs-extendekl-iitigetionr  Jane-Dee4M-end4ene-Dee42-did-net-have-fteeess-te 
impeEtem-seFFespendenee-demens4ca4ing-aaAelatien-ef-thelerights-untilame40;404-0r-On-that 
dayr  eeensel-fer-Bpsteifrsent-te-Bredle,“JrEctwardsr Es
egal-eaunsel-fer4ene-Dee-#4-an44ene 
Dee-Of2r  appreximateb,--3-58,pagesref-e-ifieil-eerrespendenee-between4is4egal-eennsel-and-the 
U78,6.44emey1/2 -Offiee4eethe4euthern-Distfiet-ef-Fleride-regarding-the-plea4greement-that-hed 
beeti-negetiated-betweeel-themr—See-Edwards-Deetaratienr
 Ailaehment-.
ese-e-mitils 
diseleseel-fer-the-first-time-4he-extreme-ttnd-uftusual-steps-that-lied4een-taken-by-the-Y787 
Attemey1/2 -Qffree40-aveid-preseeu“.ng-gpsteiwantl-te-aveid-having-the-y.ietims-in4he-ease-teani 
abeut—the—mfl--ppeseeutien—agreement—thig—had—been—reaelied—between—Eps4ein—and—the 
Gevernmentrhitigatiffil-eentinues-te-this-clay4e-ebtain-the-seFFespendenee-regarding-the-state 
preseeutieli—aftel—tegareling—svhat--Fi3steinIs—attemeys-sekl—in—the—eerrespendenee—,.,iith—the 
preseeutepsr Edwfwels-DeeleFeRien.4-22 
52. In-mid4u1y40-14r  Jane-Dee-it-l-and-Jane-Dee-002-settled-theifrek44-lawsui4s-against-.Mfr 
Epstein,?.1etiee-ef4his-feet-wastrempt4),-pres4ded4e4he-Geuctr Edwards-DeeleFatien-at-)eet7 
53. On-Septembef-8r  20-1-0r the Court entered an order stating that "[a]n examination of the 
deeket-feyeals-that-ne-aetivity4uts4aken-pleee4wthis-ease-sinee-Appil-ef-2009,In-light-ef-the 
underlying-settlements-between4he-vieti.ms-and4frEpsteinr  it-is-hereby-ordered-end-adjudged 
thei-this-ease-is-elesed
eer ita& 
54. Prempt*eti-the-heels-ef-this-administrative-efElefr  eft-Septembef-13r  20-1-Or  Jane-Dee41-and 
hne-Dee42-ft4ed-a-netiee-that4hey intentl-te-rnake-subsequent-filing-in4ke-ease-shectlyr They 
aeoerdingl.,4-request-administrative-reepening-ef4he-ease-andr  if ihe-Geart-deems4t-ath4sakkler  a 
sehedutingeettferenee-3.vitli-the-lokSrlarttemey4-Affiee4egarding-the-ease
eer #39-et-1 They 
fucther-ediriseekthe-CAUft-that-theifrsettlements-with4effrehBpstein4fEne-svey-e4Beted
theif 
EFTA00191283