UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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 detemina —the-648:-Mterney-ts-Offtee-fef-the-Seuthern-Distriet-ef-Plemila—ki-at-2—The-pleadtitg-fuft n-ex-pedh ne-Dee p-an-expedited-sehedide-fer pfeeeeding-en-the-ease --The-pleading-fufther-advised-that-the-reason-the-vietims had not filed—fer—sufficaary—j*dgment—in—the—ease—was—that—they—had—been—attemptiftg to secure eerrespendenee-between-the-I terneyls-Affiee-antl-Espstein-to-oeFFebeFate-theif-argument ts -14,tey-Freted-that-they-Itad-jast-sesured-ilalf-ef-that eeFFespenilenee-two-nienths-earlier. Id. at 2. The vietir advisabler that-a-seheeltiliftg-c-enfeFenee-he-set-fer-this-ease 55. At-all-tinles-nutterial-to-th. federal government to inlrm-Jane Doe Ill and Jane Doe fl2 of the details of the proposed non prosecution agreement with Epstein, including in partioular the fact that the agreement barred any-federal-eriminal-pnaseention=Edwards-Deelafation at 11 26. SO AGREED AND STIPULATED TO, THIS DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010. A-deems-it By: BRADLEY J. EDWARDS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DEXTER LEE ASSISTANT U.S. ATI'ORNEY EFTA00191284 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 and #2 I UNITED STATES STIPULATION The parties to this action, that is, Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, and the United States of America, by and through their undersigned counsel, do hereby stipulate and agree that the following facts are true and correct and that no further evidentiary hearing is required with respect to the pending "Victim's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim Right Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. 1. 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, amongst 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. 2. At the time that the investigation was opened, the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office had presented evidence to a state grand jury, which had returned an EFTA00191285 indictment charging solicitation of prostitution. That charge made no reference to the ages of the minor victims and, upon conviction, did not require sex offender registration. 3. Jane Doe #1 is a woman with initials C.W., and Jane Doe #2 is a woman with initials T.M. Both were victims of Epstein's while they were minors beginning when they were fifteen years old. Both Jane Does were identified through the Palm Beach Police Department's investigation of Epstein. 4. Attached as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the Declaration of A. Marie Villafana are true and correct copies of victim notification letters sent to Jane Does 1 and 2 from the United States Attorney's Office and the FBI. 5. Throughout the investigation, the FBI agents and the Assistant U.S. Attorney had several meetings with Jane Doe #1. During those meetings, Jane Doe #1 never expressed a desire to be consulted prior to the resolution of the investigation. Jane Doe #2 was represented by counsel and, accordingly, all contact was made through that attorney. That attorney never expressed that Jane Doe #2 wanted to be consulted prior to the resolution of the investigation. 6. In September 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, so long as certain basic preconditions were met, those included a conviction on a state sex offense that reflected that the victims were minors at the time the crimes occurred and that would require sex offender registration. Another key objective for the United States Attorney's Office was to preserve a federal remedy for "2" EFTA00191286 the young girls whom Epstein had sexually exploited. The Agreement contained an express confidentiality provision. The Agreement was subsequently modified in October and December 2007. 7. Although individual victims were not consulted regarding the agreement, several had expressed concerns regarding the exposure of their identities at trial and they desired a prompt resolution of the matter. At the time the agreement and the modifications were signed in September, October, and December 2007, Jane Doe #2 was openly hostile to the prosecution of Epstein. 8. In October 2007, shortly after the initial agreement was signed, Jane Doe # I was contacted to be advised regarding the resolution of the investigation. On October 2007, Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards met in person with Jane Doe #1. The Special Agents explained that the investigation had been resolved, that Epstein would plead guilty to two state offenses, 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. Jane Doe #1 also was advised that Epstein would be entering a guilty plea in state court on October __, 2007, although the October change of plea did not take place. During this meeting, Jane Doe #1 did not raise any objections to the resolution of the matter. 9. Jane Doe #1 misunderstood the explanation provided by the Special Agents, believing 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. EFTA00191287 10. When Epstein's attorneys learned that some of the victims had been notified, they complained that the victims were receiving an incentive to overstate their involvement with Epstein in order to increase their damages claims. Following the signing of the Agreement and the modifications thereto, Epstein's performance was delayed while he sought to rescind the Agreement. Throughout that period, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office maintained contact with the victims, to be prepared if Epstein were to renege on the agreement. 11. After Jane Doe # I had been notified of the terms of the agreement, but before Epstein performed his obligations, 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 Villafafta secured pro bono counsel to represent Jane Doe #1 and several other identified victims in connection with the criminal investigation. Pro bono counsel was able to assist Jane Doe #1 in avoiding the improper deposition. 12. In mid-June 2008, Attorney Edwards contacted AUSA Villafafia to inform her that he represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. Attorney Edwards asked to meet to provide information regarding Epstein. Attorney Edwards was asked to send any information that he wanted considered, but did not send anything. 13. 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 Villafafta and the Palm Beach Police Department attempted to provide notification to victims in the short time that "4" EFTA00191288 Epstein's counsel had provided. Attorney Edwards was called to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. 14. On July 9, 2008, AUSA Villafafia sent a victim notification to Jane Doe #1 via her attorney, Bradley Edwards, which is attached as Exhibit 6 to the Villafafia Declaration. That notification contains a written explanation of the full terms of the agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office. 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. SO STIPULATED AND AGREED. Dated: BRADLEY EDWARDS, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiffs Jane Does #1 & 2 R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY DEXTER LEE Attorney for Defendant United States -5- EFTA00191289 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs, 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, et al., Intervenors. / INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 26.1, respectfully move this Court for the entry a Protective Confidentially Order which (1) limits the dissemination of certain Confidential Discovery Material ("CDM") described below, to a designated list of the Plaintiffs' counsel and support staff, and (2) prohibits any party from filing pleadings, briefs, memorandums or exhibits purporting to reproduce, quote, paraphrase or summarize any CDM or portions thereof, absent leave of the Court to file the document or portion thereof under seal in accordance with Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. See Exhibit 1, Proposed Protective Confidentiality Order. EFTA00191290 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 2 of 13 In support of this motion, the Intervenors submit the following Memorandum. Part I sets forth the background of this matter. Part II demonstrates why the Court can and should issue the requested protective order. MEMORANDUM I. BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, Mr. Epstein pled guilty to two state felony offenses and served a prison sentence and a term of community control probation. The agreement, with which he has fully complied, also required that he pay the legal fees of the attorney-representative of identified victims and that he not contest liability in any cases brought against him solely under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Plaintiffs sued under § 2255 and received settlements as the direct result of Mr. Epstein's agreement not to contest liability in those cases. Plaintiffs, such as the Jane Does in this case, "relied on the [NPA] when seeking civil relief against Epstein . . . and affirmatively advanced the terms of the [NPA] as a basis for relief from Epstein." United States' Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Doc. 205-6 at 12-13. After reaping the benefits of the NPA, the plaintiffs seek herein, among other remedies, the rescission of that agreement. During the course of civil litigation against Mr. Epstein, Mr. Epstein was ordered, over his strenuous objection, to produce documents given to him by the government during the course of his settlement/plea negotiations with it. See -2- EFTA00191291 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 3 of 13 Jane Doe #2'. Epstein, No. 08-80119-MARRA, Doc. 462. Once the CVRA action was reactivated — after plaintiffs had successfully pursued their civil monetary remedies against Mr. Epstein to completion — plaintiffs sought to use that correspondence in the CVRA case and thereafter also sought disclosure from the government of correspondence authored and sent to the government by Mr. Epstein's attorneys in the course of their efforts on behalf of their client to resolve the ongoing criminal investigation of him. Both Mr. Epstein and his criminal defense attorneys - Intervenors Roy Black and Martin Weinberg — filed motions to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the use and disclosure of the settlement/plea negotiation correspondence (Doc. 56, 93), followed by supplemental briefing and motions contending, among other things, that the correspondence fell within the bounds of privilege under Fed. R. Evid. 501. Doc. 94, 160,161, 162. This Court granted the motions to intervene (Doc. 158, 159), but ultimately ruled that the correspondence — the CDM at issue in the instant motion — was subject to disclosure. Doc. 188. Among other things, the Court rejected Intervenors' argument based on Rule 501 on the ground that Congress has already addressed the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(0 and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and likewise rejected the Intervenors' request that the Court recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Id. at 8-9. The Intervenors appealed the Court's ruling to the Eleventh Circuit. However, on April 14, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court's rulings using the same rationales. -3- EFTA00191292 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 4 of 13 II. ARGUMENT Although the Court ruled that the Plaintiffs could discover the CDM, the Court reserved ruling on how the Plaintiffs could use the material thereafter, expressly cautioning that "this order is not intended to operate as a ruling on the relevance or admissibility of any particular piece of correspondence, a matter expressly reserved for determination at the time of final disposition." Doc 188, p. 10. Unless and until the Court determines those reserved issues, the Court should bar the Plaintiffs from disseminating and/or publicly disclosing the substance of the CDM absent further order of the Court. A. Discovery Should Not Be Routinely Made Available to the Public "The Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly acknowledged the private nature of discovery" Looney I Moore, No. 2:13-CV-00733-KOB (N.D. Ala. April 7, 2014), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48349, at *3, citing Chicago Tribune Co. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1316 (11'1' Cir. 2001) ("Discovery, whether civil or criminal, is essentially a private process because the litigants and the courts assume that the sole purpose of discovery is to assist trial preparation.") (quoting United States'. Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438, 1441(11'h Cir. 1986; emphasis in original). See also Anderson, 799 F.2d at 1441 ("Historically, discovery materials were not available to the public or press.") (citation omitted); In re: Denture Cream Products Liability Litigation, No. 09-2051-MD-Altonaga/Simonton (S.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2013), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8114, at *37 ("the common law right of access to judicial proceedings does not apply to discovery materials, `as these materials are neither public -4- EFTA00191293 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 5 of 13 documents nor judicial records') (quoting Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1311; citation omitted). Thus, "[a] court may restrict distribution of discovery material even if there 'certainly is a public interest in knowing more' about its contents." Tillman'. C.R. Bard, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-222-J-34JBT (M.D. Ha. March 13, 2014), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41406, at *6, quoting Seattle Times Co.'. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 31 (1984) Placing limitations on the dissemination and use of pretrial discovery is particularly important since "[t]he overwhelming majority of documents disclosed during discovery are likely irrelevant to the underlying issues...." Federal Trade Commission. Abbvie Products LLC, 713 F.3d 54, 63 (11'" Cir. 2013). Therefore, "[s]uch documents, prior to admission into the record in support of a motion or as evidence at trial, 'play no role in the performance of Article III functions' of a federal judge." Travelers Indemnity Co.. Excalibur Reinsurance Corp., No. 3:1 I-CV-1209 (CSH) (D. Conn. Aug. 5, 2013), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110400, at *37, quoting United States', Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995). These principles are vitally important here where counsels' private communications with prosecutors "if publicly released could be damaging to reputation and privacy" and would likely constitute an "abuse of [a court's] processes." Seattle Times, 467 U.S. at 35 While courts have recognized that settlement agreement materials may sometimes be discoverable, see, e.g., In re MSTG, Inc., 675 F.3d 1337, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012),' they are But see Wagner'. Wash{/)`, Case No. 2:08-cv-431 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2013), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68349 (denying motion to compel discovery of settlement agreement on relevancy grounds); Duncan' Phoenix Supported Living, Inc., No. 2:05cvl (W.D. N.C. Sept. 12, 2006), 2006 U.S. Dist. (continued...) -5- EFTA00191294 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 6 of 13 rarely admissible as evidence at trial, see, e.g, LaserDynamics. Inc. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 78 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (reversing district court for admitting settlement agreement at trial); Apple, Inc.'. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 1 -CV-01846- LHK (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2013), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160337, at "51-54 (barring parties from relying on settlement agreement at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 403). For this reasons alone, it is appropriate to limit the dissemination and use of discovery concerning settlement discussions, even if not privileged. See Charles E. Hill & Associates, Inc. I. ABT Electronics, Inc., 854 F. Supp. 2d 427, 430 (E.D. Tex. 2012) (designating discovery material including settlement communications as "Outside Counsel Eyes Only Confidential Information" and cautioning parties that while it is allowing the discovery it intends to later weigh relevance carefully and noting that settlement negotiations are "always suspect to some degree and are often littered with unreal assertions and unfounded expectations ... And are not always grounded in facts or reason."). Indeed, unless and until the Plaintiffs demonstrate a bona fide need to use the discovery at trial or in pleadings, the Intervenors need not even demonstrate "good cause" in order to obtain relief. As the Hon. Karon Owen Bowdre, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama recently held: '(...continued) LEXIS 66742, at "9-11 (finding settlement communications non-discoverable as "not .. Likely to lead to the disclosure of admissible evidence" and would tend to chill settlement efforts) (citations omitted). -6- EFTA00191295 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 7 of 13 Based on this standard of practice, the court finds that restricting the use of discovery materials to case-related purposes only, even over Plaintiffs' objection, is within this court's discretion and authority even without the application of the Rule 26(c) good cause standard. By its text, Rule 26(c) applies to situations where the court is either limiting what a party has to produce at all in the discovery process, or limiting public access to documents that are actually filed in the case. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(c). The disputed limitation in this case does not fall into either of these categories.... Looney I Moore, No. 2:13-CV-00733-KOB (N.D. Ala. April 7, 2014), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48349, at ** 4-5 (emphasis in original). B. Good Cause Exists For the Protective Order In Any Event Even if the Intervenors would be required to demonstrate "good cause" for the requested protective order at this point, that standard is met where restrictions are appropriate under Rule 26(c) to protect the Intervenors from "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." See Looney, 2014 U.S. Dist. LENS 48349, at *5; Irizarry- Santiago'. Essilor Industries, 293 F.R.D. 100, 104 (D. P.R. 2013). The Intervenors include not only the third-party client whose non-prosecution agreement is the one Plaintiffs are trying to undo but also the client's attorneys, who are even further removed from the actual litigants. Counsels' lengthy arguments may or may not have had any influence on the government's decision-making and, therefore, their relevance is particularly remote. CI United States'. Byrd, Crim. No. 13-0266-WS (S.D. Ala. April 7, 2014), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48035, at "14-18 (denying newspaper's motion to obtain copies of unsolicited sentencing letters mailed to the judge prior to sentencing, despite "no formal promises of -7- EFTA00191296 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 8 of 13 secrecy or confidentiality," because "the privacy interests of the letter writers and the interests of the judicial system in obtaining hones, uncensored input" outweighed public's interest in disclosure, especially where the sentencing letters "neither drove no significantly impacted the sentencing decision" which was based on a plea agreement). Like the situation at issue in Looney, the instant case is a "high profile" one and should not be "tried in the media, rather [than] in the courtroom." Looney, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEX1S 48349, at *5. Moreover, there is a well documented history in this case of the media reporting inflammatory statements made by Plaintiffs' counsel, either directly to the press or in pleadings, and these statements have frequently been based on discovery materials. See, e.g., Attorneys Say Miami Prosecutors Violated Crime Victims' Rights Act, Main Justice, March 22, 2011 (quoting Plaintiffs' motion asserting that the U.S. Attorney's Office "deliberately misled' them and claiming that the "only reason" the U.S. Attorney's Office "concealed the existence of the non-prosecution agreement from them was "to avoid a firestorm of public controversy that would have erupted if the sweetheart plea dal with a politically connected billionaire had been revealed"); Attorneys want Jeffrey Epstein agreement thrown out, PalmBeachDailyNews.com, March 21, 2011 (repeating aforementioned accusations from Plaintiffs' motion attacking the U.S. Attorney's Office, adding that the Office had allegedly engaged in a "pattern of deception" and noting that Plaintiffs' motion had made references to "e-mails and letters from the federal office to Epstein's lawyers"); News Reports about Billionaire Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein Highlight the -8- EFTA00191297 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 9 of 13 Importance of Victims Rights, BriefingWire.com, March 8, 2011 (quoting Plaintiffs' counsel saying "we took on powerful people and sought to level the playing field to protect victims" and that he "hopes that the media attention" will "inspire victims" to "hold predators accountable"); Judge Receives Epstein Tape Ruling Pending, Palm Beach Daily News, May 5, 2010 (quoting plaintiffs' counsel as arguing that a 22-minute tape recording of Mr. Epstein was "'critical" in showing his alleged "'lack of remorse" and that he was a "pitiless" sexual abuser); Lawyer: Epstein Made Admissions On Tape, Palm Beach Daily News (FL), April 29, 2010 (quoting Plaintiffs' motion concerning the same tape recording); Attorney For Epstein Victims: 'I have Never Seen A Stranger Case', Palm Beach Daily News, September 20, 2009, p. A.1 (quoting Plaintiffs' counsel as opining that Mr. Epstein "could have gone to prison for life," that he had "never seen a stranger case" and that the U.S. Attorney's Office was effectively "saying we'll do everything in our power to see he doesn't get punished"); Palm Beach sex offender's secret plea deal: Possible co-conspirators not charged, presses victims to settle civil suits, The Palm Beach Post, September 18, 2009 (quoting Plaintiffs' counsel as saying that non-prosecution agreement "taught [the victims] that someone with money can buy his way out of anything. It's outrageous and embarrassing...."); Judge to Rule on Sealed Plea-Deal Papers Today, Palm Beach Daily News, June 25, 2009, p. A.1 (reporting Plaintiffs' counsel saying that he wanted to use the settlement documents in depositions); Hearing Set to Consider Secrecy of Plea Bargain, Sun-Sentinel (Ft. Lauderdale, Florida), Palm Beach Edition, June 15, 2009, p. 38 (in -9- EFTA00191298 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 10 of 13 response to reporter's question about whether he thought Mr. Epstein had received special treatment, Plaintiffs' counsel quoted as saying: "Are you kidding? It's transparent. Certainly, no one else gets treated like that"). See Composite Exhibit 2. The publicity-generating comments by Plaintiffs' counsel have continued since the Eleventh Circuit's ruling. The wave began on April 21, 2014. That day, the Washington Post published a lengthy letter written by one of Plaintiffs' lead counsel containing his editorialized history of the case criticizing the Intervenors' arguments and concluding with his opinion that "the federal prosecutors deliberately concealed the sweetheart plea deal." See Composite Exhibit 3. The same attorney was also quoted by the Sun-Sentinel as making the unsupported accusation that somehow Mr. Epstein "used his political connections and great wealth" to secure a plea bargain that, in counsel's opinion "was unheard of, frankly, if you look at these charges." Id. Also that same day, the Plaintiffs' other lead counsel was quoted by the Palm Beach Daily News as referring to Mr. Epstein as "[a] well-connected billionaire" who "got away with molesting many girls." Appeals court rules against sex offender; Attorneys for underage victims seek to overturn 'sweetheart plea', PalmBeachDailyNews.com, April 21, 2014. Id. On April 22, 2014, the same attorney issued a "press release" likewise trumpeting the appellate victory, identifying Mr. Epstein's counsel by name and containing a personal statement from counsel. See Composite Exhibit 4. In a parallel article published in the Daily Business Review, Plaintiffs' counsel was quoted as follows: "Edwards said the -10- EFTA00191299 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 11 of 13 documents at this point will be disclosed only to the plaintiffs and will not become part of the public record." Id. (emphasis added). The implication of the "at his point" qualifier suggests that Plaintiffs' counsel plan to inject the private discovery into "the public record" at a later date. The next day, April 23, 2014, the Facebook page for the Farmer Jaffe Weissing law firm began posting multiple photographs of Mr. Epstein with links to numerous newspaper articles about the case, along with snippets of prejudicial quotations from Plaintiffs' counsel. See Composite Exhibit 5. The same comments were then posted on the law firm's blog "www.pathtojustice.com with yet another large photograph of Mr. Epstein, resembling a mug shot. Id. The blog includes such personalized opinions, such as: "We have a very strong case that, prodded by Epstein, the federal prosecutors deliberately concealed the sweetheart plea deal." Id. In light of the prominence of this case in the media, the repeated use of the media by Plaintiffs counsel to drum up support for their case (and to prejudice the community against Mr. Epstein and his counsel), and the Plaintiffs' suggestion that they could make the CDM available to the public in the future (just not "at this point"), the requested protective order is more than justified. As Chief Judge Bowdre likewise concluded in a similar, but less egregious, situation: The court has already expressed to the parties its concern that this potentially high profile case will be tried in the media, rather in the courtroom. Significant media coverage of the case has already occurred. In the interest of justice, this court is - I 1- EFTA00191300 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 12 of 13 committed to giving both parties a fair trial, which includes protecting the Defendants from the "annoyance, embarrassment, [and] oppression" that could occur from allowing their names to be dragged through the metaphorical mud before a jury has even made any determination of wrongdoing. At least one other court has cited the risk of excessive publicity preventing the selection of an impartial jury as legitimate sup in for a finding of good cause under Rule 26(c). See Anderson Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d I, 4 (1st Cir. 1986) (overturning the district court's decision on other grounds). As such, the court finds that good cause exists to support the Protective Order as written.... Looney'. Moore, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48349, at "5-6. LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(3) CERTIFICATION Counsel hereby certify that they have conferred with all parties who may be affected by the relief sought in this motion in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion and have been unable to do so. Plaintiffs oppose this motion. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court should GRANT this motion and enter the requested Protective Order. Respectfully submitted, /s/Roy Black Roy Black Jackie Perczek BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSPAN & STUMPF, P.A. 201 So. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 Tele: (305) 371-6421 -12- EFTA00191301 Case 9 08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 13 of 13 Fax: (305) 358-2006 rblackQrovblack.com joerczekQrovblack.com Attorneys for Intervenors /s/Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. Weinberg 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Tele: (617) 227-3700 Fax: (617) 338-9538 owlmgw(aatt.net Attorney for Intervenors CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HERE CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was filed via CM/ECF, this 2ad day of May, 2014. /s/Rov Black Roy Black -13- EFTA00191302 Case 9:08,,80736-KAM Document 247-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 1 of 6 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 4 EFTA00191303 f:2r2oCase 9:08-cv-807B6**Mmtlito awricteritc2141u4n8rstenickeneltinititioekeP06,00/005.4e«Page 2 of 6 NOT FOR REPRINT DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW L= Click to Print or Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document. Page printed from: Dully E3usiness Review Prosecutors Must Turn Over Docs In Billionaire Sex Offender Jeffrey Epstein Case John Pacenti, Daily Business Review April 22, 2014 Roy Black Partner Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf Attorneys for two alleged sexual assault victims trying to negate a federal nonprosecution agreement with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein applauded a decision by a federal appellate court as a triumph for victims' rights. But Epstein's celebrity defense attorney Roy Black said the decision by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta undercuts the plea negotiation process and attorney-client privilege. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed an order requiring prosecutors to turn over documents about plea discussions with Epstein. The decision also lifted an appellate stay on the ruling by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra in West Palm Beach to allow the release of documents to the women, identified in court papers only as Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. The women say they were sexually molested as minors by Epstein and claim federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act when they negotiated the nonprosecution agreement in 2007. Both sides agreed the opinion sets a precedent unrivaled in other federal circuits. "So much of the legal area of victims' rights is breaking new ground and new territory," said Jay Howell, a Jacksonville appellate lawyer who represented the women. "The court decision here expands the rights of the victims and the victims' ability to discover information about the criminal case." http Worm.dailybustnessmiew.conYcs/Satelhte%:Micte_Cactildpagerarne.DBR%2FArticle_C%2FArUcletaffloputs%2FPrinterFriendly&pagenamcpADA 113 EFTA00191304 5r21201CaSe 9:08-cv-80761TaktAivAluDbingreiltcEligultnalEntaftlderlefrttnieNelted5962r2tflteNPage 3 of 6 He said the women have stuck with the case out of "a fundamental sense of injustice" for the underage victims of Epstein. Black, a partner at Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf in Miami, said the 23-page opinion issued Friday has wider implications in plea bargains. No longer can defense attorneys be candid with prosecutors when trying to negotiate a plea, he said. "This is now the leading precedent holding that plea bargain discussions are not confidential, and now criminal defense lawyers must censor their communications with prosecutors," Black said. "The Eleventh Circuit has ruled there is no privilege, there is no confidentiality." Miami attorney Joseph DeMaria, a partner at Fox Rothschild and former federal prosecutor, said while the opinion is legally correct, it could have a significant impact on the 90 percent of federal cases resolved by pleas. He said it now is up to Congress to amend the Crime Victims' Rights Act to carve out a safeguard for defendants. He foresees "a chilling effect on plea negotiations where victims are aggressively seeking information? "If these type of plea discussions are now discoverable by victims, then it's going to cause significant problems for the government and defendants in trying to resolve criminal cases," DeMaria said. Epstein was accused of luring underage women to his Palm Beach mansion for sex. The television show "Law & Order SVU" had a "ripped from the headlines" episode based on Epstein, who is also known for his celebrity connections Flight logs show former President Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's private plane 10 times from 2002 to 2005. Plea bargain The appellate case stems from a decision by federal prosecutors not to charge Epstein if he pleaded guilty to state charges in Palm Beach Circuit Court for soliciting an underage girl for prostitution. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail and house arrest. Epstein moved back to New York City from Palm Beach after he finished his sentence. The women contend they could have argued against the nonprosecution agreement if they were informed before the agreement was reached. "Our clients want to see Mr. Epstein held accountable for the numerous sex offenses he committed against many children," said Bradley Edwards, the women's trial counsel and a partner at Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman in Fort Lauderdale. Edwards said the documents at this point will be disclosed only to the plaintiffs and will not become part of the public record. Andrew Levi, a partner at Lehr Levi & Mendez in Miami and former federal prosecutor, said once documents are in the hands of civil attorneys they can easily be passed on to news media or put in other court records. http /WA./ claihtxrsinessre‘l ew ccmts/Saldlite7c•Nlicle_C&childpagenam0=DBR%2FArUcle_C%2FArtscle%2FLartAs%2FPrinterFriendly&pagenarreALM 23 EFTA00191305 °'€ase 9:08-cv-8078,sicsaiNlmulDbeerPritlItc219fuleaEffrectielderrieffrbWebeeli+Peog852$201.(ftowPage 4 of 6 "It's not as if they are given to the attorney with any type of limitation attached," he said. "We are going to have to see how this plays out in the future to determine if this decision has a chilling effect on the candor and possibly the effectiveness of communications by defense counsel when negotiating a plea." Unanimous opinion Epstein's criminal defense attorneys, Black and Martin G. Weinberg of Boston, intervened in the appeal as third parties. The appellate ruling was written by one of the more conservative members of the Eleventh Circuit. Judge William H. Pryor said the federal rule of evidence cited by Epstein in the interlocutory appeal did not protect him against discoverability of plea negotiations. "And even if they did, Epstein clearly falls outside its protection because he entered a guilty plea and the victims intend to use the correspondence against the United States, not against Epstein," Pryor wrote. He was joined in the unanimous decision by Judge Beverly Martin and U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell of Orlando, sitting by designation. The U.S. attorneys office in Miami argued before Marra that the victims did not need to be notified of the agreement because the women's liberty was not at stake. It also took the position that the Crime Victims Right Act did not apply unless federal charges were filed against Epstein. Victims' Rights Howell said the decision indicates how courts have come around to the victim's point of view. He said as a state prosecutor in 1978, victims' rights were nearly non-existent. "There has been a fundamental change in the courts," he said. "It's only been in the last 30 years that courts examines things from the view point of the victim." He said plaintiffs attorneys have asked the Justice Department in Washington why Epstein was offered the nonprosecution agreement but were told all decisions on the billionaire were made in Florida. "Why was such a lenient deal offered?" Howell asked. "Washington is supposed to be tough on crimes against children, but the decision in this case certainly disputes that policy." Copyright 2014. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. httpliwom.dalpusinessremew.comics/Satellite7cgArticleSdaildpagenarnegoBR%2FArticles_C%2FAttic e%2FlayoutelafPrinterFnencilApagenamo=ALM 3/3 EFTA00191306 sr2rg (Case 9:08-cv-8074€0KANIRLDOefmciea4,247AcitimEntteieficonteretBilsOettlstateMP2OlcilmoPage 5 of 6 PRLOG Pin:S[40i0350 RAORatan r-- al 1 -"ni Solna I Pious RDleas PR Haim Country News gaited Stites fortiralia wag Beim tone grand tampion. ftbdLiidtddafLS teadi.01444.41a la News Emus.* News Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Crime Victims' Rights in Registered Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein Case In a landmark decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Court on April 18 2014, ruled In favor of two crime victims represented by Farmer Jaffe WelteJng Partner Brad Edwards and his co-counsel. Paul Cassell F0 watt:aft litter...se PRCoy (PresTReleiso)• Apr. 22, 2014 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FM. - Contact Brad Edwards. Farmer. Jails Weissing. Edwards. Philos & Lehrman P L (000)4001098 Kim Sailor. BARD MarkelinyPR kaelerebrucknarkelkm.corn Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Came Victims' Mav 2014 Rights In Registered Pedophile Jolley Epstein I Th Wa Tu hb Su So Case 3 1 Aorii2o14 20 Z:,2 211 ZL Custom Tote Bag Visiaornt Like what you see' Gel up to 2 5% off Step In a landmark decision. the V S Cowl of Appeals for the Eleventh Ciecul Court on April 18. 2014 ivied In favor of two crime deigns represented by Farmer. fats Wafting. Edwards Filet Lehrman Partner Brad Edwards and he co-coansel Paul Cassell. Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Pf0105$01 of Criminal Law - S.J. aumney Col ego of Low al the Unisersity of Utah. The ruling uphold the Darnel Court wrath ordered the United Stales Attorney's Dike to made the yams and their adocatcs the largo .dune of correspondence exchanged between Jeffrey Epstein and the Dr:nommen! that resulted In the goiemmant electing not to Federally prosecute Epstein lor his many sexual crimes against children. Attorneys Edwards and Cassell argued the case bolero the Elmonlh Circuit in February. against attorneys Roy Black and Marlin Weinberg The case in oleos a federal criminal in atigzeicri that resulted la the Federal Gcnomment learning that Jeffrey Epste n and certain co-conspirators scrawly abused dozens and dozens of minor girls in West Palm Beach. Florida. Epstein ull-maiely reached a plea deal under watch he plead gu Hy only to a MEMO charge of procuring a minor lot prostitution in exchange for the Federal Gcnornmonl agree rig not to pursue federal sox climes on behalf of mom than 40 dooms. Represented by Attorney Brad Edwards and Paul Cassel. Iwo of the gds sought to ham the plea deal Woven out because prosecutors had not informed them of what was happen rig and had taken steps to conceal the peculiar plea arrangements. The tad rns moved to rime access to the correspondence between prosecutors and dolonso attorneys to prom thaw case The EleveMh Circuit ruled that that the riches were entitled to haw ;Cent to the melons!, Agreeing wth Attorneys Edwards and Cassel. the Elmenth Circuit need that the communications were not pneleged or otherwise barred from distribution The ElotoMh Cretin Greta mod that the yams should Iiir.oy an eMdenhary benefit from the disclosure of plea negotiations to prove where the United Stales Violated their rigNs ‘ndisi the [Come Viet mi Rights) Act Upon teaming of the ruling Attorney Brad Edwards stated 'The Notion halo fought hard for almost 6 years now to team why the person who molestea them and many other ch.ldren was ultimately allowed to the ahem the law end mold being held accountable for his crimes. I'm planed that The Elmenth Circuit has made this ruling which will bring the Vet ms one step closer to knowing the hulh. Wealth and power should not invnunze anyone from punishment for harmful sexual acts against children, in the circumstances when it does the mclims should al least ham access to the explanation why. These documents should begin to explain' Farmer Jere We sting Edwards Fistos & Lehrman. P L., a Fon Lauderdale Negation pain, focuses on Consumer Class Act an Personal Injury. Wrongful Death and WhIstleblcsver Stet Idol teals The line is headquartered al 425 N Andrews Avenue. Stele 2 and may be reached al (800)400-1096 a (954) 524.2820. Additional informahon about Brad Edwards. or Farrar. Jab.. Wresting. Edwards & Lonnie. P.L. may be obtained from the Irrn's websie al Imp irwww,p,oloprfpc,:,a;talgmpary_plarl.-0451625.f. IggailsWAY.01Abe‘fell4S5,601.C.015. of 00.P. :15Ww.P.Oettejtrilli:V.e WI* hiteiNnweptios.org/1231306esappeals•courl-rules-in-liser-el-erime4ctlms-rights-ingegistereSpedophileleareyepstein-case hurl Search Daily News Assida.kCaSit &Sal t Warlatilf0 Paton Rerigtagrer Yes' akshi a inteouc,“ Collect on eafatlelJesugalissbrus eulaS_Sailiarattuticiv QW :venire. Glom b'i.'is nail /0)1'W ftesThrillTheatialliai.fauseJ flaphin.fddistesig ift!!!if! yanpya aillaPUPCCO kN ..CAVILLEatfoktalf9SSI q•slsounden(s ccnk.4 Weekly News F4POSIciaa Tplenz_pap /Awe Stars Unite at Sinter Fide m ',Mho Conte. ;zoo:MIAM AwarCeji • o964 Sows EvialtutEititLit'ae C7!, IbcfMacialtiltaC Ltsjagightgiggs . 1256 News Ult.f.2.5...9.5tustese ustvais tra sthski .826 NOV* (panne, Bros a Lisa 111colit cniloceron Retinal/Model stwon Mormon ip to. yea r001101 • 714 sews NH 22 2019 hews 12 EFTA00191307 512120 ase 9:08-cv-80798MANPREPorartver4F21437440^5Etat4etftthigtiMetleifteeleg7MILEPLIPage 6 of 6 Contact BARD MarkoIlru) aSKSCLIThrli9lin•ISC•2 — End E • -•all Embed PDS Print ri t :1 Contact Erna', . Cue lacl hither •"(psardrrerSoUng corn •-•"" Source : BARD WrIrerlog Cit/Town Fon La, deroale • SlouilA - Muted SLISIC 111OUSPt : Loser Tags : Brae Edwards. Jeffrey Epstein. Cruno V•ctrus Rights, Ulmer one urasono shortcut : prlog oriel 2313086 0111C111111111: 1$$ UOI1 011110 ;1101.. 101041.US are SI.Olyiotputrublo fur me coMoni often, 'wen releases u. be held liable Inr Our cmlam pOSIOCI WI: tot artogoSsusli Latest Press Releases By "emokomesen • sA parrhutweil,"•1 r 0410% Item FOnftei JO," wre12.Shi.. PrulScir•MO re >lb A•001•14KIDS BqS ereril • Crrrern NOT PIO:1..111...A/191.1111111111 .1611,11.ttinal • 6e1:11116/11/ Eta 1.21_112O111111.141.1.50.9hIslitt 194h Cotuir Begs'. Lim Corirereuce • Its-ifluttgcoll U.S.ElitSPL&ISIlet lacr.9SitiheSee•Ce FOu•Welcre s Cove° H ribt AnOLtailla • &NanOV GA rL^!ri•^4S9elb,.,n.Lr•KMCIt1ct i licoseeLllutho.• Trending News— • WacctericEsd FAM05j Flamm, Discusses QrsEorfc .Viol on Ctrs, r‘ SMe14 • dificmlinAnalliesitio_Sstaz_konthltRoalarlkUlvasun.Biss:LSIm.facacelat • Var.anikkiLvalsaatiiirm.:_lataq9osd9.5.uktMailafataliate5...P.c.c.Swotsetemaitca • I'Intml&Ins.ludettsik•D FAXISE sAlty..*I.SovillOcelktyksamtnn • counom nom Angounatyro rimer no on Sege Snit lor AWwd Werb.fla lot ri E991100ti rev INTRODUCING FREE SHIPPING EVERY DAY, EVERY ORDER SHOP & SFF CODE Lim PRLog? 9K 2K 1K t tL hop i/vemv.p•log .org /12313086- appeals- court.rules•in.laux•ol•crinwiclims• righls•In•regislerecl•pecicpth le-Jeffrey ORSICIn-CaSC hlrri EFTA00191308 Case 5:05-cv-80736-KAM Document 247-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 1 of 12 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 5 EFTA00191309 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 2 of 12 5212014 Fairy Jaffe NtIssIng Farmer Jaffe Weissing 29$ Ito • 44 talong sedan Ito • 9 were heft law haft(' 425 H ANSICWS AVC • Ste. 2, Fo•t ',Werth*, fl edd (SOO) 400-1098 Abdul • Suspect so 62.1 Post Photo / Video fanner Sale Wolssing reagents. Farmer Jaffe Weissing Gabe Z.1mbrart0 Ns been selected as a 2019 Top Rated Lawyer In Hass Tart bY ALM & Martindale Hubbell. hOps://plus.google.com/10180SH2IS7326626220040sesiDoWCV rZPit — with Gabriel F Zambrano. 295 Contact tls Woos ntOttoptos Cm to 10, toendt. to Lae llot Par ;pc a Irerdo nine... a. Mancliette Randy Stone...! gik Marco RagessIno sc. RCM Cw o aces Set Al hark.] Recent Posts by Others on Fames Jae Wash; See as hOps./Mssw.faceboolccemfarmerJaffeW2IssIng 1129 EFTA00191310 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 3 of 12 92f2014 F atm Jaffe VikissIrg LEGAREAEGIS AV ALM Ay•2014TOPRAITOLAWYERS saws- MASS TORTS outkoliont Aswan Curaw4 Cement • State IS wok Ike 021, Marianne Carlisle Salem Way to so, Cobs. pig' 19 lows tigo • Ua Fanner Jaffe Weissktg shared a Ink • 2 roan sip FJ wig a Lawsult for SOX/sally Assault by a massage The a p st hop //hub.amiliziWap 0.411/0•10.10.1010•••41.11y.elip Lie Crown • Skase Stacey Swim best*. S filing a Lawsuit for Senually Assault by • Mange Therapist Mip Wans,pstMogette.conYtlogitaVI witSlifengakWwwl losiestraft Fanner Jaffe Weaning Ape 29 )ob us In wishing Farmer Jaffe WetsSing - Gary Farmer a Happy aftbdayl is Rae Sterner Moore Hey WI, bob Se a gixograpii Wry protessenal plate.. mrch 26 at Citsirn Premier Process Saving ,r Cal Jaclocentles east feta* process scan. Pante, PM febnary 26 M 12 02ote II Bonk Mauls 'Rate Zantraro, ct (artier /WM Webster, b a CO-Chat letwary 25 ill 10 4boa !Itch Twin's a tours wallow ate rats go Canes, - Novella, 2, 2013 al 12 COorn Rsce Point Legal Race Pokt Legal Ms detrital tedwtbgy, maltreat and c Seaeryter 12. 201)M 10.15am More Pout Likes Mime,' Lawsuits I (Oates I Lawyers I Attorneys LOssi Rusnen t nt Aerkan Atsocistion for Justice ia tient 'boles U . Svc All (§) If *sal County Courts byword County] tounhowsec CevenineM 0careaten belessbnalsemtes Courtione pig bin brockovIeh NOW Mows Stetson gotersIty Colette Of law Pi Colege &Vestin? Activity Recent LIM= CARff . , . • I ' tie ISA hie Fanner Jaffe Weissinci acetic! 7th Annual 4F3DS Fog Canby SR. Fxness.Sports. Fenner Jaffe WabsIng toted a Ink. Yesterday Sexual Assault by Manage Therapists latp://hub.ami Itscga St Milli Assault by Massage Therapists httaijnympatMoluslte.attablogibld/344105/ietuakassaUtlar PIMSJIQI•there41 Serval smuts ol genii by imsuge inerapets M itt see are otork9 al let rates ardInnults on te fled. It- Conners • share NOS INniamlacebookcomf rentJatfeiMissing 2/29 EFTA00191311 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 4 of 12 5/22014 tat • Coontem • share 27 people Pe US. raw levee content. Tommy Stocbefle happy &Ott Gahm,' r Apl 29 at 6:047s • Uke A aaaaa ale Bathos 2ambeanaHappe enMay Ap129 at a 4Ipm• Lax S r n Farmer Jaffe WelssIng share() a Int Ap129 siColleges and Pun veeSleeS need to face the facts abort isexualassault; OVicePresidentladen said In a statement as a 20- page report was released. '14o more turning a blind eye or pretending it doesn't eidst. hip White House releases report on sex mantle at [alleges snromvashiegicerost.com tiae • Gemmel • Share Golan, &Oda Iles Ns. ry1 Fernier Ialle WalssIng federal offdab have Iona a Web see cake WlAbre.g0. to newt urvanses of sexual duet* on CanguSel One IMO On 10 thelerge cobs. w sooty thee students rod year atxmiA frbomcbxt one other salary bow. APre 29 at 9:49am• Ile S gill Ronny Jane Weaning LS Awl Za Join us In wishing Kristen Wagner a Happy Birthday, Farrier Jaffe WaissIng Fanner hdf e Massing neat ea an event. I apt 29 7"'ANNIIAL :SV..;.:(5. t SK. FITNESS. SP0ATS. •eane "Mr- err no Dr 7th Annual 4ICFDS Big Caleb 5K. fit neSS.SpO its Tomonavi Central froward Retionalead. Fort Lauderdale. Fbetla Istauderht Muth et the frit pinion to pre • tat • fearer< • Shoe t Ill Pinner Jae WebeIng shared a tett Pod 29 'Fated bin attomey I'MattWelssing on May 3 and run the 7dI Annual 4110ds B9 Carrie 5IC Help make a difference In the lives or Florida's roster children. Click I nk Pew to sign-up or make a donation. partrinen: M AWASH inclaibe SS Flora Street Sing Crinr,04 Bel Taw \ +I* Iamb At ka Iron sainsubflute thanes and horn Ian?, bar/ Awards Al Mon Sop Fokt. &Wets Ard Net 2/3/7011 Sfstll lhhml salt', SAnald Vst011 Frnaeti MOS 5.4 Ca !Obi Mara. Sweat. Gly•. - 140m• .org and aw.a Se am• Steam 'Jaen n hatate•U I.os se• FIG Canso Skies-mu. Sews. eenettrq 030S or Sovels 'tens • Jon us May 20Ie to. an aiming ay d finest, spats, scuttles. food an, It,, 11 Be cart ware supporta.; Ire Is one. tie • Catmnit • Shate Ana Stall! Otto, tart/ram its the. farmer Jaffe Welseln g shamed a kik. ata 20 Farmer lee Wes! ng conUntes to evaluate legal clots aganst ItIpelMww.latebOck con* at reerJaffeAtis sing 129 EFTA00191312 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 5 of 12 9212014 Ike • Cowin • Shart IR Cantinas:a pat. al Clots tin* fll<h nippy entail Ant 28 at 3 -Spero Ile a Anastasia lithos Ca maven* RICO! eintsday Aord 28 at S. Sapp • LW S Pinner latie Welding shared a Ink. Arn 25 Farm JeffelMISSIng Stryker Corporation over thtgr 'recalled aRehreenate & /ASCII hp imPlants• Any questions welcome. NA)://vnwcpathtolvsbCe COM/stryaer-lewsults STRYKER HIP ALGAL LawSullS www patkolusuca.ccm Ilattonwide Cale avablitionsinvcionplatssAIS Spann STRYKER HIP RePACeatilYS follaaine a wee el me athAtilaTE a AMU snown ftelvveruiTE 1A%0 erOadarnerk lerroml to system retitled 1, toy 2013. uke • Coons . Shaft Newsweek examines Mena IUD lawsuits and growing number of allegations and claims imohIng use the conuacepove. Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Are they as safe and effective as defined? Those questions remain at the heart of ongoing lawsuits and litigation. Farmer Jaffe Weissing Gabe Zambeano remains an original tought leader on to controversy and we are owStigating darns, as well as accepting new cases. Contact is with questions. hap://www.newsweek.corn/2011/05/02/courtrcomiccotroverstte. nd.pcipulaOcontraceptive-rnirend 248443.harni Co scorn Connoversy Sabina Popular Contraceptive Minns Lae • Convent • Sure Bonne P.UnG gel run. S Fenner lake WelssIng Apt Li Daly Mall reviews I lth Circuit dedslor and Sun Sentinel arbde reagarding kffrey Epste n. Related links appear below. hflpsfiv.w4facebookocenfarmerJaffetAleissing eag EFTA00191313 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 6 of 12 922014 Fortner JAN81%10.21622 SPX Wonder Jeffrey roma solved 13 monies in ;Moot. 2007 for rotenone motion ogle. Um • Cowen • Share Mid. Me lies Um. r Fame r Jaffe Welssing hop awswersagrelcookr...allonarerservenm. La glillonalre's actions to see negotiations that led to lenient sentence twerv.emlaroCcoar The Fixrda hone had moan] mamma ttleitetec paltcaru and groat. See Pore Apt 23 st 6 49pm • tag • I I Fanner Jane Welning mtpthrwn.shatentnetrool...rn tefIrty•totten. . VktIms ger tight to gee negatlationi that led to lenient' plea agreement for Winonahe sew— vemesuresentneleom O13a Palm troth Wrote Pao Sweat:Pled for neva; Set Went enng gas .. See Pont Apr 23 at 6:49pn • the • 1 a rennet Jaffe Wetsang shared a ma rat Appeals Court Rules In Fever of Calla gICISMS• Rights In Registered Pedophile Jeffrey EPStin Case ht101fttb•aellill99)03 FREE CASE EVpIATION fet.A.Ditglig ue Commit • Sham Made Ike art this. a Appeals Court Risks In Favor of Came Victims' Rights In Registered Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein Case httplanne.pathtogaterhoonYbtortnt/3 farmer )af f e Westing shred a Y.A. gprl 23 fain liworrafaCtr0C0gccraFalfferJ0RMAgissing EFTA00191314 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2014 Page 7 of 12 57/2014 Funs Jaffe Missing Nil us in welcoming attorney eAdamHorovntr to the Farmer Jaffe Weiss'ng Ten Adam loins attorney dead Edwards to further expand die firm's nationwide sCrimetiletlmsR ghls and eSentelAbuse Practice Group. htfp://www.pathanusbre.cnon/adam•lionhwtt: Adam Horowitz tie • Conwen • %we )woe bens Sand., K Simpson Johnson Wetcere shard N. ltormst. Apt 23 at 10 seam • the Ili Reheat MIsOroll Fleischer halal ter *I 24 at 7:37am 4. Farmer Jaffe Watling shoed a int I W Aorl 23 'Our COWS want to see Mr. 0 Epstein held accountable for the numerous isexoEfenses he committed against many chkften,' said sEeadlesEdwards, the women's IT al counsel and a partner at Farmer, Jaffe, WeissIng, Edwards, hum & Lehrman in Fort Lauderdale. Prosecutors Must Turn Over foci In acilanaire Se. OfIcndet 'entry Epstein Ca se Mt • Cesnrent • Ssne 2 mole lie Ws S 1 Farmer Jaffe Welssing shared a Ink. Awl )2 The front page d todays Sun-Sencinei • Victims w n right to see negotiations that led to 'lenient' plea agreement for bill onatre sex °Herder leffrestpste n. Victims Mn right to see negotiations that led to 'lenient' pin agreement ler bellonahe see— evasion-sent hel Dam Ur • Conner y • 5Nre 8 peooh Se lit S Fenner Jane WetmIng Mated a Ink. WA 22 AdSdonat neon coverage on attorney leradEchvards case against Ueffrey£psteln. Tins 4 a big nefOlY for NS deb and for crentsICOMS. bit) use COMM": ' Sham 6 peope as MY. S U Fenner awl 2i Seventh Occult roles that discovery can move Conran, on my Crime Victims R la Ms Act case wnwarathrotoremscom Wellston(' sued a int. In recent years, the number of acyclls5 and apedestrians eluded and a *red In *crashes In ibroward and 0Falmdeach counties has spiked. haps //yaw+ facebockccerYFarrnarialfelnkissing &29 EFTA00191315 •Case9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 247-5 EnteredonFLSDDocket05/02/2014 Page 8 of 12 9212014 FormaMissing t I I farmer Jaffe Weissing Unite Recent Sundae pushes pedestrian, bike safety vowieurvidentheteCni mace are urgeorg two Oakland Park %obvert:I marimbas webe nip motet cf bride and cederuen wishes, Wing to educate venone about the Nes of the road Uic'Comer4•Slum Fenner Sere Massing shared a Int. Apd 11 This Is one more step in the fight by Warns' attorneys Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell to overturn the secret deal, which saved Epstein from facing senous federal charges one serving s reticent prison One. Appeals court toles against its oleander lap • Commit • share 6 pea* lc this Made Une ins a ken ;nod day. iith rut got a V11. CYgattaaibMI Apt 21 at 11 Mom' uk i •tn Farmer Jaffe Missing shared a Ink. 11 Awl le A STampaDayScho:' principal has been arrested afar arn,lesdrig a student he befriended aft the death of his latter. The K•El %hod Speclataes assisting studeris who have m Id to moderate elearnmptliablie. es, dyikna, andety, and ACRD. TanottOnSdmOpeMcfpaltmestedelteraWhollkosayhe molested a stud/At www.tawoniay.com A Tana bay SChoolOnCblimes attend Thorny alter authaters saki he raPannuteU touched a mita, wis nese totem be had Others:ltd. accorded to an anvil mean. the • ronn3to • Sha e llonue Nines Vies ln hflp51thwm.lecoboatccenr enrcrJalletftletsalfig Farmer Jaffe Welssing sealed a one. won 17 • fated Local Steadier rearrested and accused of asexuallraSsaiderg a !student after being warned by stood officials not to spend any time alone WM the Swaim. froward teacher acCui•O of sex vath teen had been yarned to stay any arlk/eS Suesallndeem A tylon school Palm teacher acCUsed an havro se. nth ore el It 1410Pd! students Ma or (Pada beheld a $910 Intl t now ier.eq rederalcharges. trt ithani %hitt, 24. or... Ue'Cament' Sine Recent 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Fonred Sponsored 1.0,20Sportewear • ! tgOSCII ra' cc.m Si Si la PI Up to 30% off vatarnt.com LI 0 VI Her Carey on Wipe tine SheIOWP corn T. G SI FCC6ORIVE ern3tOn.Cern : t 14 7r.n EFTA00191316 • 5,2/23ase 9:08-cv-8073644404KCoutWytworffEt VaSvicERnIgicttiloSrfeteftPfletikqtrOMM0434e Page 9 of 12 Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Et Lehrman, P.L. • 1.855.700-PATH • Proven Resells • Willa • Bles SOICh Current Adsak ID PSS Feed Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Crime Victims' Rights in Registered Pedophile Jeffrey E Epstein Case Posted on Wed, Apr 23,2014 1.1.1/401 ij-inti reek attiglIST1014 Patti 1 ol IPLIBLIsHi N THE UNIT I D STATES COURT OF APPEALS FUR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No 11.12923 D.0 Docket No.9 OS•cv.80736-KASI JANE DOE NO. I. JANE DOE NO 2. Plasottifs•AppcIlett setup UNITED STATES OF Al 'MC Dtforbeti. ROY BLACK. MARTIN 0 WEINBERG. SEEFRE1 EPSTEIN. Intentoon•Appelloote Appeals eons the Weed States Amite Coon fo the &Mika) APma of Fkuidn tAptil IS 2014) Berme PRYOR Intl MARTIN Cu colt lotto*. awl HONEYWELL.• Dnitici /oast liencratik ChNlais Filwood. Down. di Veined Stun Nano kifc fel the NIIAJk Cnsinci of ilonell lows by einiplavion httpitmew path:cjuslice,ccenticg tbid/343584/Appeals-Coull•Rules•In-Faor-of-CrIme-Victirre.Righls-in- Registered-Pedophile-Jeffrey& Epslei n-Caseil.U2On . 1/4 EFTA00191317 • simoiCase 9:08-cv-8073444thlaburtDoeurruasibWigisEticu&ntweakabbittifigbauloaff$9.102430394 Page 10 of 12 On Friday, April 18, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit mad that discovery can move forward in an important Crime Victims' Rights Act case that my co-counsel Paul Cana and I (Prod Edwards) have been litigating for nearlysix years. The narrow issue before the Circuit was whether prosecutors and defense attorneys share an absolute privilege, to the exclusion of even the victims of the crime, so as to prevent anyone (including the victims) from knowing anything about the plea discussions. The District Court ruled that no such privilege exists and the 11th Circuit has now agreed. In Ws case, the ruling means that the victims will have a chance to review the correspondence exchanged between Epstein and prosecutors to learn how (panty the secretive deal was reached while the victims were lead to believe a prosecution was underway. The ruling will also get the victims one step closer to retuning to the district court and seeking to invadale the plea agreement that was consummated In violation of their rights. We hope that the case wit ultimately set en Important precedent establishing the timing for when victim's rights are triggered and ultimately prevent prosecutors from keeping victims in the dark about the plea deals reached with perpetrators. IltraaPtelr!nr21 of Etterrtry:nt .5.r.nelDffent/Yrillerlbal JET HUY I (Milli Date OlPhoto: OVIS/1013 fildlistaYlastibkasalst tirelmehro Smile/Wet ewe MOW I MIEN USN Illinadilalaill 1 Whig Os•rune...4 V/35715 Conecib..w t frarth the bet