07/28/2011 13:11 FAX 001/004 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Fax Transmittal 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60654 Phone: (312) 862-2000 Fax: (312) 862-2200 Please notify us immediately if any pages are not received. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL, MAY BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION, AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. UNAUTHORIZED USE, DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT: (312) 862-2000, To: Company; Fax #: Direct #: I District of Florida ce; Company: Fax #: Direct #: Martin G. Weinberg, Esq. From: Date: Pages w/cover: Fax #; Direct #: yp meray a a Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C, July 29, 2011 ‘ Message: Please see the attached letter, in response to your letter to Martin Weinberg of July 27, 2011, concerning Jeffrey Epstein. Thank you. Documen@ EFTA00180294

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

07/28/2011 13:12 FAX @ 002/004 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (AND AFFILIATED PARTNERSHIPS: 601 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. rer a Jay.te ind.com www. kirkland.com July 29, 2011 Delivery by Facsimile CONFIDENTIAL Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Avenue Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: — Jeffrev Epstein Dear Thank you for your letter of July 27, 2011 to my co-counsel Martin Weinberg concerning the request by the New York District Attorney for copies of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) and the “victim list” in regards to Mr. Epstein. We continue for the reasons stated herein to believe that any such disclosure would violate the confidentiality agreement between your Office and Mr. Epstein as well as the provisions of Fed, R. Crim. P. 6(e). As to the NPA, you have repeatedly asserted in Doe vy United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736- KAM, that the NPA was a confidential document. For instance, in paragraph 6 of Document 14, your own Declaration, you stated that the NPA contained “an express confidentiality provision.” In opposing the Motion to Unseal the NPA that was filed by Jane Doe, you stated that you had informed Judge Marra of the confidentiality provision during an earlier telephonic status conference occurring on August 14, 2008 which “the United States was obligated to honor,” Document 29 at 1, and that “the parties who negotiated the Agreement, the United States Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein, determined that the Agreement should remain confidential,” Document 29 at 2. Further, you deemed the NPA “confidential,” for understandable purposes, in your September 3, 2008 letter to Robert Josefsberg in which you informed him that Judge Marra had set forth procedures for providing the NPA only to those counsel and “victims” who executed a Protective Order preventing its subsequent disclosure. The New York Assistant District Attomey, Ms. Morse, is representing the prosecution in an appeal regarding a sex offender registration determination, and any disclosure of the NPA to her has the potential to result in its use in that appeal and the real risk that the appellate court will unseal it. We believe it to violate both the spirit and the most logical interpretation of the NPA, Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich Palo Alto San Francisco Shanghei Washington 0.C. K&E 194397482 EFTA00180295

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

07/29/2011 13:12 FAX 003/004 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP July 29, 2011 Page 2 paragraph 13, for you to disclose it absent a subpoena -- which we could oppose in the jurisdiction from which it emanated, We further believe that when parol evidence supplements the text of paragraph 13 of the NPA, it is perfectly apparent from your prior submissions that you as well as we believed the NPA to contain “an express confidentiality provision” that your current willingness to disclose absent court process violates. As to the “victim list,” again, not only is it confidential given its nexus to the NPA, but your own prior letters tie the list to the Federal Grand Jury investigation and thus to the non- disclosure provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). On July 8, 2008, you wrote to Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., and informed him that on June 30, 2008, “the United States Attorney’s Office provided [him] with a list of thirty-one individuals ‘whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein.’” (emphasis added). ©n July 9, 2008, you wrote in a follow-up letter to Mr. Goldberger that “the U.S. Attomey’s modification of the 2255 portion of the Agreement now Jimits our victim list to those persons whom the United States was prepared to include in an indictment. This means that, pursuant to Justice Department policy, these are individuals for whom the United States believes it has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that each of them was a victim of an enumerated offense.” (emphasis added). First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Sloman used similar language in tying the names of the “victims” to the basis for a potential indictment, see December 6, 2007 letter from Mr. Sloman to Mr. Lefkowitz at 2, 3; see also your email to Mr. Lefkowitz and Mr. Black on August 14, 2008 at 3:27 p.m., where you state that the list contains “only those ‘individuals whom [the United States] was prepared to name in an Indictment...,”” thus clearly providing the nexus between the list and the Grand Jury investigation and its corollary, the protections from non- disclosure enumerated in Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). In terms of case law, the names of witnesses that either testified or were identified during Grand Jury proceedings are subject to the secrecy provisions of Fed, R. Crim. P. 6(e). See, ¢.g., udi i 438 F.3d 1138, 1140 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“Consistent with these purposes, we have recognized that grand jury secrecy covers ‘the identities of witnesses or jurors, the substance of testimony as well as actual transcripts, the strategy or direction of the investigation, the deliberations or questions of jurors, and the like.’”) (citing In re Dow Jones & Co., Ing,, 142 F.3d 496, 500 (D.C. Cir. 1998)); see also SEC v Dresser Industr. Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1382 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Fund for Constitutional Gov’t v Nat’! Archives & Records Serv., 656 F.2d 856, 869 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Indeed, it is generally recognized that the scope of protection accorded to Grand Jury proceedings under Rule 6(¢) is broad and encompasses, among other things, information such as the “victim list” at issue here: K&E 194397482 EFTA00180296

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

07/29/2011 13:12 FAX @ 004/004 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP July 29, 2011 Page 3 We construe the secrecy provisions of Rule 6(e) to apply not only to disclosures of events which have already occurred before the grand jury, such as a witness's testimony, but also to disclosures of matters which will occur, such as statements which reveal the identity of persons who will be called to testify or which repon. when the grand jury will return an indictment. In.ze Grand Jury Investigation, 610 F.2d 202, 216-17 (Sth Cir. 1980),' We believe that confidentiality applies to the requested information. We believe that any non-compulsory handover of the list or NPA is inconsistent with the positions you have previously taken in related litigation. Accordingly, we request that you reconsider and decline the request of the New York District Attorney. Sincerely, P. ‘owitz, P.C. Cc: Martin G. Weinberg JPL/slm ' Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit handed down prior to September 30, 1981, are binding as precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. See Bonner y, City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981), K&E 19439748.2 EFTA00180297

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Roy BLACK BLACK — Sorcha age rrr LARRY A. STUMPF KORI NSP, anne AMON ANION MARIA NEYRA . TON, JR. JACKIE PERCZEK “ STUMPF MATTHEW P. O'BRIEN MARK A.J. SHAPIRO = PASS JENIFER J. SOULIKIAS JARED Lopez NOAH Fox i TT September 1, 2009 Assistant U.S. Attorney United States Attorney’s Office 99 N.E. 4™ Street Miami, Florida 33132 RE: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Once again I need to send you a note about Jeffrey Epstein, mainly to keep you in the loop so we don’t inadvertently violate any provision of his agreement with your office. As I am sure you are aware, Mr. Epstein has finished the incarceration portion of his sentence and is now serving the one year of community control as mandated by both his state plea and the terms of the non- prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. Mr. Epstein is in compliance with all terms of his community control and is applying for transfer of his supervision from the State of Florida to his primary residence, the Virgin Islands. This transfer is being requested through the Intrastate Compact for Transfer of Adult Supervision (ICAOS). The ICAOS is the mechanism for which transfers of probation and community control are effectuated. The process requires the offender to seek the approval of the sending state (in this case Florida) and, if they agree, the receiving state (in this case the United States Virgin Islands) and the United States Virgin Islands after investigation has pre-approved the transfer under the same exact conditions of supervision as imposed in Mr. Epstein’s community control sentence in the State of Florida. Even though Mr. Epstein is requesting the transfer he is still at the home 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite [300 + Miami, Florida 33131 + Phone: 305-371-6421 + Fax: 305-358-2006 + www.RoyBlack.com EFTA00180298

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Jeffrey Sloman, Esq. September 1, 2009 Page 2 in Palm Beach following the rules of state community control. As Mr. Epstein’s lawyers, we believe that his request to administratively transfer his community control is in full compliance with both his state plea agreement and the non- prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office. Nonetheless we have taken to heart your previous suggestion of erring on the side of caution and thus we are advising you of this request. I am happy to discuss this with you at any time. I did not want to set an appointment to see you on this issue since I imagine you have more pressing matters to deal with than a transfer of a state community contro] matter. Roy Black RB/wg Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. EFTA00180299

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Roy BLACK HOWARD M. SREBNICK Scott A. KORNSPAN Larry A, STUMPF MARIA NEYRA JACKIE PERCZEK MarK A.J. SHAPIRO JARED LOPEZ BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN & STUMPF JESSICA FONSECA-~NADER KATHLEEN P, PHILLIPS AARON ANTHON MARCOS BEATON, JR. MATTHEW P. O’BRIEN JENIFER J, SOULIKIAS NOAH Fox February 18, 2010 Assistant United States Attorney 99 N.E. 4" Street Miami, FL 33132 RE: Jeffrey Epstein Thank you for your letter of February 11, 2010. We write to update you about ongoing efforts to reach an agreement with Robert Josefsberg regarding the amount of fees and costs properly owed to him by Mr. Epstein pursuant to the NPA. On February 16, 2010 Mr. Epstein’s principal civil counsel Bob Critton advised Mr. Josefsberg in writing that he and Mr. Epstein would meet with Mr. Josefsberg on two occasions between now and March 1, 2010 to review Mr. Josefsberg’s outstanding bills on a line-by-line basis and attempt to reach a non- adversarial resolution of all outstanding fee issues. Mr. Critton also transmitted to Mr. Josefsberg an Agreement for Special Master to Determine Amount of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Special Master Agreement”), signed by Mr. Epstein, containing terms and conditions previously agreed to by Mr. Josefsberg, which would mandate binding mediation before a neutral third party in the event the proposed settlement discussions did not resolve all outstanding issues in an expeditious manner. We want to assure you that Mr. Epstein fully intends to fulfill his obligations under the NPA. We regret that issues remain unresolved regarding whether all of the fees and costs being sought by the attorney representative — which now total $1,947,000 exclusive of the $526,466 already paid by Mr. Epstein —- meet the criteria set forth by the NPA. We assure you that both Mr. Epstein’s prior civil counsel, Jay Lefkowitz, who, with you, was a primary negotiator of the NPA language, and Mr. Critton, each strongly believe that significant amounts of the fees and costs billed by Mr. Josefsberg are outside the scope of Mr. Epstein’s fee- 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 + Miami, Florida 33131 « Phone: 305-371-6421 + Fax: 305-358-2006 + www RoyBlack.com EFTA00180300

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Maric SE, Esq. February 18, 2010 Page 2 related payment obligations under the NPA. We hope that the fee-related issues can be resolved by further settlement discussions or by relying on the Special Master Agreement signed Tuesday February 16, 2010 by Mr. Epstein. Mr. Epstein and his counsel believe that these options are consistent with the NPA, are good faith alternatives to contested litigation, and are reasonable given the unexpected magnitude of the bills and their inclusion of charges for legal work that was clearly related to the preparation of litigation and thus outside Par 7C of the Addendum as well as for extensive work performed by attorneys from outside Mr. Josefsberg’s law firm. Mr. Josefsberg previously advocated for settling outstanding issues through a Special Master Agreement nearly identical to the one executed Tuesday by Mr. Epstein. In fact, Mr. Josefsberg and Mr. Epstein had each agreed in the past to a specific Master as a third-party neutral to conduct proceedings to resolve the fee issues. However, the selected Master withdrew. We hope that the Special Master Agreement will provide a basis for a prompt resolution of any issue not resolved by the parties through further discussions. Respectfully submitted, MARTIN WEINBERG, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. wld Wed, /wg Robert Senior, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. EFTA00180301

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

March 20, 2011 To whom it may concern: I served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida from 2005 through 2009. Over the past weeks, I have read much regarding Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. Some appears true, some appears distorted. I thought it appropriate to provide some background, with two caveats: (i) under Justice Department guidelines, I cannot discuss privileged internal communications among Department attorneys and (ii) I no longer have access to the original documents, and as the matter is now nearly 4 years old, the precision of memory is reduced. The Epstein matter was originally presented to the Palm Beach County State Attorney. Palm Beach Police alleged that Epstein unlawfully hired underage high-school females to provide him sexually lewd and erotic massages. Police sought felony charges that would have resulted in a term of imprisonment. According to press reports, however, in 2006 the State Attorney, in part due to concerns regarding the quality of the evidence, agreed to charge Epstein only with one count of aggravated assault with no intent to commit a felony, That charge would have resulted in no jail time, no requirement to register as a sexual offender and no restitution for the underage victims. Local police were dissatisfied with the State Attorney’s conclusions, and requested a federal investigation. Federal authorities received the State’s evidence and engaged in additional investigation. Prosecutors weighed the quality of the evidence and the likelihood for success at trial. With a federal case, there were two additional considerations. First, a federal criminal prosecution requires that the crime be more than local; it must have an interstate nexus. Second, as the matter was initially charged by the state, the federal responsibility is, to some extent, to back-stop state authorities to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice, and not to also prosecute federally that which has already been charged at the state level. After considering the quality of the evidence and the additional considerations, prosecutors concluded that the state charge was insufficient. In early summer 2007, the prosecutors and agents in this case met with Mr. Epstein’s attorney, Roy Black. Mr. Black is perhaps best known | for his successful defense of William Kennedy Smith. The prosecutors presented Epstein a choice: plead to more serious state felony charges (that would result in 2 years’ imprisonment, registration as a sexual offender, and restitution for the victims) or else prepare for a federal felony trial. What followed was a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors. I use the word assault intentionally, as the defense in this case was more aggressive than any which I, or the prosecutors in my office, had previously encountered. Mr. Epstein hired an army of legal superstars: Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz, former Judge and then Pepperdine Law Dean Kenneth Starr, former Deputy Assistant to the President and then Kirkland & Ellis Partner Jay Lefkowitz, and several others, including prosecutors who had formally worked in the U.S. EFTA00180302

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Attorney’s Office and in the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department. Defense attorneys next requested a meeting with me to challenge the prosecution and the terms previously presented by the prosecutors in their meeting with Mr. Black. The prosecution team and I met with defense counsel in Fall 2007, and I reaffirmed the office’s position: two years, registration and restitution, or trial. Over the next several months, the defense team presented argument after argument claiming that felony criminal proceedings against Epstein were unsupported by the evidence and lacked a basis in law, and that the office’s insistence on jail-time was motivated by a zeal to overcharge a man merely because he is wealthy. They bolstered their arguments with legal opinions from well- known legal experts. One member of the defense team warned me that the office’s excess zeal in forcing a good man to serve time in jail might be the subject of a book if we continued to proceed with this matter. My office systematically considered and rejected each argument, and when we did, my office’s decisions were appealed to Washington. As to the warning, I ignored it. The defense strategy was not limited to legal issues. Defense counsel investigated individual prosecutors and their families, looking for personal peccadilloes that may provide a basis for disqualification. Disqualifying a prosecutor is an effective (though rarely used) strategy, as eliminating the individuals most familiar with the facts and thus most qualified to take a case to trial harms likelihood for success. Defense counsel tried to disqualify at least two prosecutors. I carefully reviewed, and then rejected, these arguments. | Despite this army of attorneys, the office held firm to the terms first presented to Mr. Black in the original meeting. On June 30, 2008, after yet another last minute appeal to Washington D.C. was rejected, Epstein pled guilty in state court. He was to serve 18 months imprisonment, register as a sexual offender for life and provide restitution to the victims. Some may feel that the prosecution should have been tougher. Evidence that has come to light since 2007 may encourage that view. Many victims have since spoken out, filing detailed statements in civil cases seeking damages. Physical evidence has since been discovered. Had these additional statements and evidence been known, the outcome may have been different. But they were not known to us at the time. A prosecution decision must be based on admissible facts known at the time. In cases of this type, those are unusually difficult because victims are frightened and often decline to testify or if they do speak, they give contradictory statements, Our judgment in this case, based on the evidence known at the time, was that it was better to have a billionaire serve time in jail, register as a sex offender and pay his victims restitution than risk a trial with a reduced likelihood of success. I supported that judgment then, and based on the state of the law as it then stood and the evidence known at that time, I would support that judgment again. Epstein’s treatment, while in state custody, likewise may encourage the view that the office should have been tougher. Epstein appears to have received highly unusual treatment while in jail. Although the terms of confinement in a state prison are a matter appropriately left to the EFTA00180303

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

State of Florida, and not federal authorities, without doubt, the treatment that he received while in state custody undermined the purpose of a jail sentence. Some may also believe that the prosecution should have been tougher in retaliation for the defense’s tactics. The defense, arguably, often failed to negotiate in good faith. They would obtain concessions as part of a negotiation and agree to proceed, only to change their minds, and appeal the office’s position to Washington. The investigations into the family lives of individual prosecutors were, in my opinion, uncalled for, as were the accusations of bias and / or misconduct against individual prosecutors. At times, some prosecutors felt that we should just go to trial, and at times I felt that frustration myself. What was right in the first meeting, however, remained right irrespective of defense tactics. Individuals have a constitutional right to adefense. The aggressive exercise of that right should not be punished, nor should a defense counsel’s exercise of their right to appeal a U.S. Attorney to Washington, D.C. Prosecutors must be careful not to allow frustration and anger with defense counsel to influence their judgment. After the plea, I recall receiving several phone calls. One was from the FBI Special Agent-In- Charge. He called to offer congratulations. He had been at many of the meetings regarding this case. He was aware of the tactics of the defense, and he called to praise our prosecutors for holding firm against the likes of Messrs. Black, Dershowitz, Lefkowitz and Starr, It was a proud moment. I also received calls or communications from Messrs. Dershowitz, Lefkowitz and Starr. I had known all three individuals previously, from my time in law school and at Kirkland & Ellis in the mid 90s. They all sought to make peace. I agreed to talk and meet with each of them after Epstein pled guilty, as I think it important that prosecutors battle defense attorneys in a case and then move on. I have tried, yet I confess that has been difficult to do fully in this case. The bottom line is this: Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire, served time in jail and is now a registered sex offender. He has been required to pay his victims restitution, though restitution clearly cannot compensate for the crime. And we know much more today about his crimes because the victims have come forward to speak out. Some may disagree with the prosecutorial judgments made in this case, but those individuals are not the ones who at the time reviewed the evidence available for trial and assessed the likelihood of success. Respectfully, R. Alexander Acosta Former U.S. Attorney Sothern District of Florida EFTA00180304

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

' Case $:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page1of51 4; = UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA wn > WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA JANE DOE, et al., | | | Plaintiffs, | JUNE 12, 2009 6 | vs. | 7 | JEFFREY EPSTEIN, | 8 | Defendant. | 9 x 10 TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING 11 BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 APPEARANCES : 13 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. 14 Mermelstein & Horowitz 18205 Biscayne Boulevard 15 Miami, FL 33160 PY For Jane Doe 16 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. 17 Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard 18 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Jane Doe 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 19 20 ISIDRO M. GARCIA, Garcia Elkins Boehringer 21 224 Datura Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 22 Jane DOE II Po 23 RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQ. 2290 10th Avenue North 24 Lake Worth, FL 33461 For C.M.A. Res 25 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180305

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page2of51 92 » ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG, ESQ. Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 25 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 For Jane Doe 101 Po (Via telephone) KATHERINE W. EZELL, ESQ. Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 25 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 N w wn eS oO 7 For Jane Doe 101 Po 8]| FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL BURMAN, ESQ. 9 Burman Critton, etc. 515 North Flagler Street 10 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561.842.2820 11 JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. 12 Atterbury Goldberger Weiss 250 Australian Avenue South 13 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Pe 14 AS AMICUS CUKIAC: 15 Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 East Broward Boulevard 16 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 For U.S.A. fC 17 MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ESQ. 18 20 Park Plaza Boston MA 02116 19 (Via telephone) 20 JAY LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. (Via telephone) 21 REPORTED BY: LARRY HERR, RPR-RMR-FCRR-AE 22 Official United States Court Reporter Federally Certified Realtime Reporter 23 400 North Miami Avenue, Room 8N09 Miami, FL 33128 fF 24 25 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180306

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page3of51 3 1 THE COURT: We are here in the various Doe vs. Epstein 2] cases. | 3 May I have counsel state their appearances? | 4 MR, HOROWITZ: Adam Horowitz, counsel for plaintiffs | 5|| Jane 2 through Jane Doe 7. 6 THE COURT: Good morning. 7 MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, counsel for plaintiff Jane 8]) Doe. 9 THE COURT: Good morning. 10 MR. GARCIA: Good morning, Your Honor. Sid Garcia for 11] Jane Doe II. 12 THE COURT: Good morning. | 13 MR. WILLITS: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard 14]} Willits, here on behalf of the plaintiff C.M.A.. 15 THE COURT: Good morning. 16 MS. EZELL: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Katherine 17]| Ezell from Podhurst Orseck, here with Amy Adderly and Susan 18} Bennett, and I believe my partner, Bob Josefsberg, is going to 19] appear by telephone. 20 THE COURT: Mr. Josefsberg, are you there? 21 MR. JOSEFSBERG: I am, Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: Good morning. 23 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Good morning. 24 THE COURT: All right. Do we have all the plaintiffs 25|| stated their appearances? Okay. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180307

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

’ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 4 of 51 4 1 Defense? 2 MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, Robert Critton on behalf of | 3]|Mr. Epstein, and my partner, Michael Burman. 4 THE COURT: Good morning. 5 MR. GOLDBERGER: Good morning, Your Honor. Jack 6 || Goldberger on behalf of Mr. Epstein. 7 THE COURT: I see we have some representatives from 8]| the United States Attorney's Office here. 9 MS. QJ: «Good morning, Your Honor. (a 10 || MMM «for the U.S. Attorney's office. 11 THE COURT: Good morning. 12 Who else do we have on the phone? 13 MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, we have two members of the 14] defense team are on the phone, also. 15 THE COURT: Who do we have on the phone? 16 MR. WEINBERG: Martin Weinberg. Good morning, Your 17} Honor. 18 MR. LEFKOWITZ: Jay Lefkowitz. Good morning, Your 19]| Honor. 20 THE COURT: Good morning. 21 I scheduled this hearing for very limited issues 22]} which, as you all know, there's been a motion by Mr. Epstein to 23) stay the civil proceedings against him. The one issue I have 24] concern about is Mr. Epstein's contention or assertion that by 25]| defending against the allegations in the civil proceedings, he TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180308

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

’ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 5 of 51 w 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 may expose himself to an allegation by the United States in the non-prosecution agreement that he's violated that agreement and therefore would subject himself to potential federal charges. I had asked for some briefing on this. I asked the United States to present its position to me. And I received the Government's written response, which I frankly didn't find very helpful. And I still am not sure I understand what the Government's position is on it. So first let me hear from Mr. Epstein's attorneys as to what do you believe the concern is. I don't believe the non-prosecution agreement has ever been filed in this Court; am I correct? MR. CRITTON: To my knowledge, Your Honor, it has not. THE COURT: So I don't believe I've ever seen the entire agreement. I've seen portions of it. MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, I believe that it was filed under Jane Doe 1 and 2 vs. United States of America, case under seal in your court. THE COURT: Okay. MR. EDWARDS: In a separate case. THE COURT: In that case, okay. Was it actually filed in that case? MR. EDWARDS: I filed it under seal. THE COURT: In any event, what's Mr. Epstein's concern about if you defend the civil actions, you're going to expose TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180309

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

’ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page6of51 6 1] yourself to a claim for a breach by the United States of the 2] non-prosecution agreement? 3 MR. CRITTON: Robert Critton. 4 Your Honor, our position on this case is, I'd say is 5]| somewhat different. When this issue originally came before the 6}| Court, as you are aware prior to my firm's involvement in the 7\| case, there was a motion filed on behalf of Mr. Epstein seeking 8]/a stay. And I think it was in Jane Doe 102 and then 9]/ subsequently Jane Doe 2 through 5 because all of those cases 10] were filed on or about the same time. 11 And at that time the Court looked at the issue and it 12]} was based upon a statutory provision at that time. And the 13] Court said I don't find that it's applicable, or for whatever 14]} reason I think the Court said I don't consider that to be a 15]| pending proceeding or a proceeding at that particular time. 16 In that same order, which was in Jane Doe 2, I 17]} believe it's -- not I believe, I know it's docket entry 33, the 18] Court also went on to talk about at that particular point in 19] time dealt with the issue of the discretionary stay. 20 And the Court said at that time, I'm paraphrasing, but 21]} the Court also does not believe a discretionary stay is 22} warranted. And what the Court went on to say is that if 23] defendant does not breach the agreement, then he should have no 24] concerns regarding his Fifth Amendment right against 25]| self-incrimination. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180310

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

' Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 7 of 51 e Nn w ~ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The fact that the U.S. Attorney or other law enforcement officials may object to some discovery in these civil cases is not in and of itself a reason to stay the civil litigation, so that any such issue shall be resolved as they arise in the course of the litigation. And I would respectfully submit to the Court that the position that the Government has taken in its most recent filings changes the playing field dramatically. Because what the Government in essence has said as distinct from the U.S. saying is, well, we object to some discovery, or we may object to some discovery in the civil cases. What they have, in essence, said is if you take some action, Mr. Epstein, that we believe unilaterally, and this is on pages 13 and 14 of their pleading or of their response memo to the Court's inquiry, they say if Mr. Epstein breaches the agreement. They said it's basically like a contract, and if one side breaches, the other side can sue. In this instance what the Government will do is if we believe that Mr. Epstein has breached the agreement, we'll indict him. We will indict him. And his remedy under that circumstance, which is an incredible and catastrophic catch 22 is, we'll indict him and then he can move to dismiss. That's a great option. In this particular instance my mandate in defending -- and that's a dramatic change in the Government's position, TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180311

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

' Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 8 of 51 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 because the Government is not saying, and the Court was pretty specific in what you asked the Government for in its response is, in essence, and it's the same question in a more limited fashion you're posing today is whether Mr. Epstein's defense of the civil action violates the NPA agreement, the non-prosecution agreement, between the U.S. and Mr. Epstein. And the Government refuses to answer that question. They won't come out and say, yes, it will, or no, it won't. What they're doing is they want to sit on the sideline, and as their papers suggest is, they want us to lay in wait and that if, in fact, they believe he violates a provision of the NPA as it relates to the defense of this case or these multitude of cases, then they can come in and indict him -- no notice, no opportunity to cure. We don't think that's what the NPA says, but that's certainly what their papers say. We'll indict him, no notice, no opportunity to cure. We will indict him, and his remedy under that circumstance is that he can move to dismiss the indictment. Well, that's great except Mr. Epstein, his mandate to me and I know his mandate to his criminal lawyers, is: Make certain I don't do anything, in particular in these civil cases that would in any way suggest that I am in willful violation of the NPA. Now, in the Court's prior ruling in the docket entry TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180312

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

" Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 9 of 51 rR N w Cc 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33, certainly some aspects of the NPA are within Mr. Epstein's control. There's no question about that. But aspects that relate to the defense of these cases, either in terms of the civil lawyers who are defending these, I think there's 12 or 13 pending cases in front of you, there's another four cases in the state court, is the risk is substantial, it's real, and it presents a chilling effect for the civil lawyers in moving forward to determine whether or not we're taking some action that in some way may be a violation of the NPA. And the Government's, again, refusal or non-position with regard to past acts that have been taken in the civil case with regard to the defense or future acts that we may take with regard to these contested litigation casts an extraordinary cloud of doubt and uncertainty and fear that the defense of these cases could jeopardize Mr. Epstein and put him in the irreparable position of violating the NPA and then subsequently being indicted. In this particular instance, again, Mr. Epstein has no intention of willfully violating the NPA, but it's of great concern to him. And I'd say with the position that the Government has taken, no notice, no cure period, no opportunity to discuss. Again, we think that's not what the NPA provides, it's not what the deal was between the two contracting parties, the United States and Mr. Epstein. But that's clearly what their papers say under the circumstances, and it would create TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180313 9

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

* Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 10 of 51 49 » this irreparable harm to Mr. Epstein under the circumstances. 2 In essence, we're left with a catch 22 in defending 3] the civil cases. We have a mandate to take no action, to take 4]| any action which may be deemed to be a violation of the NPA, 5] either in the past or in the future, which would in any way a risk Mr. Epstein being indicted by the United States. 7 He has the clear risk of an indictment based upon the 8] papers that the Government filed. It's real, it's not remote, 9] and it's not speculative. It chills the action of the defense 10]/ in this instance of both Mr. Epstein and his attorneys in 11] trying to defend these cases and decide under the circumstances 12} can we do this, can we take this position with regard to 13 || depositions, can we take this legal position with regard to 14] motions to dismiss, with regard to responses, with regard to 15} replies? 16 And we send out paper discovery. Is this in some way 17] if we contact someone who may be an associate of these 18 || individuals as part of our investigation, is that potentially 19) in any way a violation of the NPA? Again, we don't think so. 20 And, obviously, again, my direction has been from my 21|| client: Don't take any action that would result in me being 22]| indicted under the NPA. Well, that's great. But, generally, 23] civil lawyers or civil lawyers in defending a personal injury 24]| case or a tort case, which is exactly what these are, and from 25]/a practical standpoint, we use various tools to do discovery. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180314

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

' Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 11 of 51 4; e w me 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 They're standard. They're specific. They're very temporary. Very typical. But in this instance, as the Court knows, things are not typical with regard to this case in any way, shape or form. We can't even serve subpoenaes, there's objections and there's -- we can't even serve objections to third parties so we can obtain documents unless we have to filter it through the plaintiffs' attorneys. They won't allow us to use their clients' names, even in a subpoena that would never be filed in the court. How do we do a deposition of a third party? We wanted to take the deposition of Jane Doe 4. Well, who is she? Well, we can't tell you that. Well, who's the defendant? Well, we can't tell you that because nobody wants anybody to know anything about the case. They want to present it strictly through rose-colored glasses. And in this particular instance, we simply can't defend this case or take certain action with the spector hanging over us that, in fact, the Government may deem it to be a violation of the NPA, because very clearly in their response papers, they don't say. They say we don't take the position, and then they take a substantial position is we think there's not all that substantial factors that would entitle him to a stay. Except for the one major issue which the Court posed TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180315

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

' Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 12 of 51 12 1]}/ in the question is, is can he defend these cases? That's what 2]/ I really want to know. Can he defend these cases and, in w essence, what he has done in the past or what his defense team > has done in the past and what they're going to do in the 5] future, can you give him, Epstein, assurances that the 6] Government under this situation, whatever he does, based on 7|| advice of counsel, that that cannot be a willful violation of 8i| the NPA, which they can -- they, the U.S. -- can then turn 9] around and say that's a violation of the agreement and, 10] therefore, we're going to go proceed to indict you under the 11]| circumstances. 12 Our position is, Your Honor, is that the U.S. has now 13] cavalierly suggested that, as they did in picking up on the 14]] court's docket entry or prior order, is, look, compliance with 15]/ the NPA is solely up to Mr. Epstein. In this type of balance 16 |} of equities, it doesn't speak in favor of a stay. 17 Well, that's great. And maybe that was the position 18) back in '08, on August 5th of '08, when the issue came up in 19]] front of the Court with regard to the initial stay. 20 But the Government's papers under these circumstances 21]| suggested a very different set of circumstances. Their own 22] unilateral, which is the issue that we argued in the motion for 23} stay, is that the Government's position is that we can 24] unilaterally indict this man if we think he's breached the NPA. 25 We don't think that's right, but we have no buffer TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180316

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

‘Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 13 of 51 43 ul con) J @ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 between us and the Government. They'll say, and as the Court knows, the Government has substantial power. The Government does what it wants. Most of the time hopefully they're right. Sometimes they make mistakes. But in this particular instance, my client has rights. We think that there's notice provisions, we think there's cure provisions under the NPA. That's not what their paper says under the circumstances. And what we'd like to know from the Government, and maybe the answer is basically what the Court asks is, let the Government come forward today and say, based on the knowledge that we have, or as of today's date, June 12th, 2009,,we, the Government, agree that there is no set of circumstances, not that we're not aware of, but as of today's date, there is nothing that exists that would be a violation of the NPA. THE COURT: Well, that's way beyond what I'm interested in. I don't know what Mr. Epstein may have done outside the context of defending this case that may constitute a violation. And if he has done something outside the context of defending this case that's a violation, I don't care. That's between the United States and Mr. Epstein. I'm only concerned about whether anything he does in defending these civil actions is going to be a violation of the non-prosecution agreement. If he has done something else, it's none of my business, and I don't care, and I'm not going to TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180317

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

’ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 rR iS] w co 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 even ask the Government to give you an assurance that he hasn't done anything that might have violated the agreement up till today. I'm only interested in defending these civil actions. MR. CRITTON: Then I would respectfully submit to the Court that the Government be asked in that limited context, are they as of today, whether there were or not, but as of today is there anything that has been done or will you take the position, the United States, that any position that Mr. Epstein has taken with regard to defending these civil cases is in any way a violation of the NPA? THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure what they're going to say, but that might -- that cures the problem up to this point. But then we have to deal with what's going to happen from here on in. And that's another issue that we have to deal with. So I understand your position, But has anyone suggested to you on behalf of the United States that there is something that you've done in defending this case that they believe may or could be construed as a violation of the non-prosecution agreement? Has anyone pointed to anything that you've done? For example, the fact that you've wanted to take their -- I don't know if you've noticed depositions or not in this case, but if you've sent notice of taking deposition, if you sent requests for production of documents, if you sent interrogatories, if you issued third party subpoenas? Is anything you've done thus far TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180318 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 14 of 51 44

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

"Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 15 of 51 is 1] in the context of this case been brought to your attention as a 2] potential violation? 3 MR. CRITTON: I have received no notification nor am I 4|| aware that we've received any notification of any action that 5} we have taken today. As I suggested to the Court, I don't know 6]| when they've done or not. And in their papers they suggested, 7} well, we don't know everything that's gone on in the civil 8]} litigation. 9 But from a practical standpoint, it was a number of 10]/ comments that were made in their papers is, we can indict, we 11] can see if there's a breach. 12 Judge, I may have some -- 13 THE COURT: Before you go on, 14 MR. CRITTON: I'm sorry. 15 THE COURT: You've focused a great deal on the 16} Government's response to my inquiry as supporting your position 17]| that you're in jeopardy. But you've made the suggestion, even 18 || before this brief was filed, that defending the case was going 19} to potentially result in an assertion or allegation that you 20]| breached the non-prosecution agreement. . 21 So what was it that caused you to make that initial 22]) assertion? Because that's what caught my attention, was not -- 23]| this brief that the Government has filed was in response to 24]} something that you filed initially in your most recent motion 25]| for a stay which raised the issue. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180319

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

‘Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 w a s ao 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So what was it that gave you some concern to even raise the issue that defending this case is going to constitute a breach? MR. CRITTON: Because there are other instances where counsel other than myself, not in the civil aspects, where allegations have been made and letters have been sent by the United States suggesting that there's been a violation of the NPA. And under those circumstances, some notification was provided. THE COURT: Did it have anything to do with defending the civil actions? MR. CRITTON: It did not. THE COURT: So then why was that issue raised by you in the first instance? MR. CRITTON: Because of the prospect that the defendant could take, that the U.S. would take the position under the circumstances that a position that we took with regard to the contested litigation may well impact, that the Government may have a very different view of what the interpretation of the agreement is. And as an example is a number of the parties, and I know the Court doesn't want to get into a discussion, the issue is, is under 2255 is that from the defendant's perspective the deal that was cut on that, it was a very specific deal. It dealt with both consensual and contested litigation. It dealt TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180320 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 16 of 51 j¢

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

‘Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 17 of 51 47 1]/ with a secret list of individuals who we had no idea who was on 2i| the list, and a commitment that he would under certain 3] circumstances be required to pay a minimum amount of damages, 4]/ which our position is under 2255 based upon the statute that 5]}/ was in effect at the time, a $50,000 as to anyone who wanted -- 6]| who came forward who was on the list and met certain criteria. 7 The position that now has been asserted by a number of 8] the plaintiffs under the circumstances, and it's been pled, and 9]/ actually a number of the complainants is, is Epstein agreed, 10]| and they cite to a letter that was sent by Ms. JJ from 11]} the Government, that says he has to plead guilty or he can't 12]| contest liability. That may be true under very, very limited 13} or specific circumstances. 14 But what the plaintiffs have done in a number of the 15]| cases, and these are pending motions, is they've said is, well, 16]} we think C.M.A. cases is a good example, they've pled 30 17], separate counts of 2255 alleged violations. And they're saying 18] under the circumstances is, therefore, we have 2255 violations, 19] there's 30 of them, so 30 times 150, or should be, or whether 20 it's 150, that's the amount of money that we want, so maybe $15 21]] million, or whatever the number is. 22 Some of the other plaintiffs' lawyers have been even 23|| more creative. They've said is, well, we'll agree that it's 24] only one cause of action but that each number of violations; 25]/ that is, if 20 alleged incidents occurred, that we would TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180321

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

" Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 18 of 51 jg ew w » 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 consider to be, or that we will argue are violations, then we can take 20 times the 50, or the 150, depending on which | statute is applicable. So the Government under that set of circumstance could say, and, again, this is one of the reasons that we raised it, they could say, look, our deal with you was that you couldn't contest liability, that you were waiving liability, or your ability to contest an enumerated offense under 2255. Again, part of the deal was as to an enumerated offense. Okay. Well, what's that mean? What did he plead to? Well, he really didn't plead to anything, which is another issue associated with the 2255. But if the Government comes in and says, no, wait a minute, our position was, is that you're stuck with 2255 and the language within the NPA. And, therefore, whether it's an offense or whether it's multiple offenses or violations or each one represents an individual cause of action, if the Government takes the position that's adverse to what we think the clear reading of the agreement was under those circumstances, they could claim a violation. And as a result -- and that's one of the reasons we put -- that was the most glaring one to us, so we raised that issue. And then when the Government's response came with regard to, is we can just proceed to indict if we think that there's been a breach of the agreement. That puts us at substantial risk and chills our TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180322

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

" Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 19 of 51 49 1] ability to move forward. Thank you, Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Thank you. Who wants to be heard from the w plaintiffs first? 4 Is there any plaintiff's attorney who is contending 5] that the defense of these civil actions by Mr. Epstein is going 6]}/ to constitute a breach of the non-prosecution agreement? 7 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, this is Bob Josefsberg. 8] May I speak? 9 THE COURT: Yes, sir. 10 MR. JOSEFSBERG: We're not quite confident that any 11] breaches of any agreement, which were third-party 12]| beneficiaries, should be resolved by you. We're not saying it 13]/ shouldn't. But we have not raised any breach of agreement. We 14] think that is between the United States and Mr. Epstein. 15 What I find incredulous and disingenuous is that 16] Mr. Epstein is saying that he wants a stay because he may be 17}| forced into taking actions in the defense of this case that 18} would violate the agreement. 19 And let me make our position clear on that. If he 20] wants to move to take depositions, interrogatories, production, 21]/ and they are according to your rulings appropriate, not 22], invasive of the privacy of someone, and they are relevant, then 23} I don't know how those could in any way be violations of the 24]) agreement. 25 What I find hypocritical is that there are two parts TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180323

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

’ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 20 of 51 20 1 N w 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to the agreement that I am a beneficiary of. One of them is that he has agreed that on any action brought in the 2255, he will admit to liability. And I received on May 26 a motion to dismiss, which we're prepared to respond to and disagree with, but totally contesting liability, saying that the statute doesn't apply because the girls are no longer minors and saying, and this is the great one, saying that the predicate of the conviction under 2255 has not been satisfied. Now, the understanding that I have is the agreement between the Government and Mr. Epstein was that the Government desired to see these victims made whole, and wanted them to be in the same position as if Mr. Epstein had been prosecuted and pled or convicted. And they would be able to have the predicate of that criminal conviction, which just as a matter of liability would just be introduced as proof that he's done this. They, under the agreement, are supposed to admit to liability on limited something that's under 2255. He has filed, but since there is no conviction, there can be no civil suit under 2255, with which we disagree. But it is totally in opposite of the NPA. The second part is there are many young ladies, and this perhaps he can use this to his great advantage, who are humiliated about this entire situation. Some of them won't TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180324

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

" Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 21 of 51 21 1] come forward. 2 We were appointed by Judge Davis as a Special Master 3] to represent these young ladies. And some of them don't even 4]/ want to file suit. They don't even want to be known as Jane 5] Doe 103. They don't want any of the risks for these motions 6]| that are pending. 7 And part of the agreement was that if we represented 8]| them and they settle, Mr. Epstein would pay our fees. And he 9] has written us as of yesterday that he is under no obligation 10]/ to pay our fees on settling cases. 11 Now, those two matters, I believe, may be breaches. 12] But I am not asking this Court at this time to do anything 13} about them. Nor am I telling the Government, I'm not running 14]/ to the Government and saying indict him because I want you to 15] pressure him to do what he agreed to. 16 I'm a third-party beneficiary for that agreement, and 17] I may move to enforce certain parts of it. But as far as the 18]} issue of staying the litigation, that is the exact opposite of 19]} the intent and the letter of the NPA. The purpose of the NPA 20]/ was so that these 34 young ladies, these victims who have been 21] severely traumatized, may move on with their lives. 22 And to stay this action would be the exact opposite of 23] the purpose of that agreement and would be horrible 24] psychologically for all of my clients. 25 THE COURT: Mr. Josefsberg, I understand your TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180325

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

‘Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 22 of 51 22 1 position. And I don't want to argue the merits of whether a 2] stay should or should not be granted. w I'm just trying to understand what the ground rules cs are going to be if I grant a stay or if I deny a stay. And 5]| I've already denied a stay once. I have to decide this current 6|| motion, and I just want to know what is going to happen if I 7|| deny the stay in terms of Mr. Epstein's exposure under the 8] non-prosecution agreement. That's my concern. 9 So if you're telling me that you're not going to urge 10]/ the United States, on behalf of any of your clients, to take 11] the position that he's breached the agreement because he's 12]| taking depositions, because he's pursuing discovery, because 13} he's conducting investigations that anyone in any other type of 14) civil litigation might conduct with respect to plaintiffs that 15]/ are pursuing claims against a defendant, that those typical 16] types of actions, in your judgment, are not breaches of the 17]| agreement and that he can go forward and defend the case as any 18] other defendant could defend, and you're not going to run to 19]| the United States and say, hey, he's breaching the agreement by 20]} taking depositions and he's breaching the agreement by issuing 21]} subpoenas to third parties in order to gather information 22) necessary to defend, then I don't have a problem. But if he's 23 |] going to be accused of breaching the agreement because he sends 24} out a notice of deposition of one of your clients, how is he 25], supposed to defend the case? TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180326

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

“Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 23 of 51 23 Ww 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, you're totally correct. He can depose my client. That's not a problem. But the problem is that these are not typical clients and this is not a typical case. He has written in his pleadings that he wants to publish the names of these girls in the newspapers so that other people may come forward to discuss their sexual activities with these different plaintiffs. That's not your typical case. But are rulings that you'll make in this case, and they're not part of the NPA. As far as my going to the Government is concerned, I find it very uncomfortable for me to use the Government to try to pursue my financial interest in litigation. And I know that Mr. Epstein and his counsel will make much ado about it. So TI am not going to be running there. However, if they start taking depositions regarding liability, I will consider that to be a breach because they're supposed to have admitted liability. THE COURT: But, again, I don't have the agreement and I don't remember reading the agreement. But what I'm being told is the part of the agreement that admits liability is only as to a 2255 claim, and there are numerous other personal injury tort claims other than 2255 claims. And there's a limit of damages on the 2255 claim, as I understand it, but I presume that all the plaintiffs are going to seek more than the limited or capped amount of damages in TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180327

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 24 of 51 24 1]/ the non-prosecution agreement as to the other claims. N And so why aren't they entitled to defend and limit w the amount of damages that your client is seeking on the 4]] non-2255 tort claims? 5 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, you are correct. On 6]| non-2255 tort claims, they are permitted to do the defense, — whatever is appropriate. @ My cases are pure 2255 on which liability under the 9]| agreement is supposed to be admitted. Now, as to the amount of 10] damages, there are legal issues that will be before you and 11) under the C.M.A. cases that are getting before you, as to 12] whether it is 50 or 150. That has nothing to do with the NPA. 13 There are legal issues that are before you as to 14) whether it is per statute, per count. or per incident or per 15] plaintiff. Those have nothing to do with the NPA. There is no 16]} amount in NPA. Those will be resolved. 17 Anyone who has brought a case that is outside of 2255, 18 ]} the defense is permitted to contest liability under the NPA. 19]| That's no violation. 20 Under the NPA if someone brought a case under just 21] 2255, Mr. Epstein, if he is to keep his word, cannot contest 22|| liability. And there would no need to stay this. Because it 23]/ is a self-fulfilling agreement. He can contest liability. And 24]) as far as the amount of damages, anyone that wants to go over 25] the statutory minimums, of course, he can contest that in any TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180328

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

“Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 25 of 51 295 1] way that is proper under the Rules of Evidence and your 2) rulings. The NPA has no limitation on his contesting damages w above the minimum statutory amount. > The only thing that he has done is in his actions of 5 || refusing to pay for settling defendants, and in his saying that 6] he has no liability under 2255, those appear to be contrary to 7} what's in the NPA, 8 But I'm not in any position right now to claima 9l| breach, and I don't know whether I'd be claiming a breach or 10] enforcing it in front of you, suing him for fees, asking you to 11] have him admit liability, or complaining to the Government. 12]| And that's why I'm not that helpful in this situation because I 13} think it's the Government's role. 14 But I do not waive the right to be a third-party 15] beneficiary because pursuant to my appointment, which was 16} agreed to by Mr. Epstein, I and my clients have certain rights, 17] and we want to enforce them. 18 But his defending this lawsuit will not in any way be 19]/ a violation. His getting this lawsuit stayed would be a 20]| violation of the spirit of taking care of these girls, and 21] there would be other issues. Like if there is a stay, Your 22} Honor, would he be posting a bond? 23 THE COURT: We don't need to talk about those issues. 24] That's not my concern. 25 MR. JOSEFSBERG: I agree, Your Honor, we don't. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180329

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

‘Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 N w > 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: That's not my concern. So, again, I just want to make sure that if the cases go forward and if Mr. Epstein defends the case as someone ordinarily would defend a case that's being prosecuted against him or her, that that in and of itself is not going to cause him to be subject to criminal prosecution. MR. JOSEPSBERG: I agree, Your Honor. THE COURT: Any other plaintiff's counsel want to chime in? MR. WILLITS: Richard Willits on behalf of C.M.A.. I would join, to weigh in on what Mr. Josefsberg said. MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, I could not hear. THE COURT: We'll get him to a microphone. Mr. Willits is speaking. MR. WILLITS: On behalf of my client, C.M.A., we join in what Mr. Josefsberg said, and we also want to point out something to the Court. First, we want to make a representation to the Court, we have no intention of complaining to the U.S. Attorney's Office, never had that intention, don't have that intention in the future, but, of course, subject to what occurs in the future. I want to point out to the Court that Mr. Epstein went into this situation with his eyes wide open, represented by counsel, knowing that civil suits had to be coming. If he TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180330 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 26 of 51 26

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

’ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 1] didn't know it, his lawyers knew it. 2 w 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 He appears to be having second thoughts now about he could have negotiated this way or he could have negotiated that way with the U.S. Attorney's Office. And they want to impose their second thoughts on the innocent plaintiffs. We don't think that's fair. We think it's in the nature of invited error, if there was any error whatsoever. Thank you. THE COURT: You agree he should be able to take the ordinary steps that a defendant in a civil action can take and not be concerned about having to be prosecuted? MR. WILLITS: Of course. And we say the same thing Mr. Josefsberg said. It's all subject to your rulings and the direction of this Court as to what is proper and what is not proper. And we're prepared to abide by the rulings of this Court, and we have no intention of running to the State's Attorney. THE COURT: The U.S. Attorney? MR. WILLITS: I'm sorry. The U.S. Attorney. THE COURT: Mr. Garcia. MR. GARCIA: Thank you, Your Honor. If I may briefly, I think perhaps defense counsel forgot about this, but on pages 17 and 19 of my memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to dismiss, I did make reference to the non-prosecution agreement, and I did say that TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180331 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 27 of 51 97

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

“Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 28 of 51 28 1]} the contesting of the jurisdiction of this Court was a 2] potential breach of the non-prosecution agreement. w So my client happens to have, and they have filed with 4]/ the Court a copy of her state court complaint, given the fact 5]| that the non-prosecution agreement limits the non-contesting of a jurisdiction to claims exclusively brought under the federal 7) statute. 8 I'm going to go ahead and withdraw those contentions 9]/ on pages 17 and 19 of my memo of law because it doesn't apply 10]} to my case. So to the extent that I raised this issue with 11]| defense counsel and the Court, I'm going to withdraw that 12} aspect of it. 13 THE COURT: Can you file something in writing on that 14] point with the Court? 15 MR. GARCIA: Yes. 16 THE COURT: What do you say about this issue that 17]}/ we're here on today? 18 MR. GARCIA: I think that the problem that I have with 19] it is that this non-prosecution agreement is being used by 20]| defense counsel for the exact opposite purpose that it was 21) intended. My perception of this thing, and I wasn't around, is 22} that Mr. Epstein essentially bought his way out of a criminal 23 || prosecution, which is wonderful for the victims in a way, and 241i) wonderful for him, too. 25 Now he's trying to use the non-prosecution agreement TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180332

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

‘Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 29 of 51 29 1] as a shield against the plaintiffs that he was supposed to make 2] restitution for. w And, certainly, he can take my client's depo. He's Ca done extensive discovery in the state court case -- very 5]} intrusive, I might add. And we don't care, because we can win 6] this case with the prosecution agreement or without the 7}| prosecution agreement. We are ready to go forward. 8 THE COURT: You're not going to assert to the United 9|| States Government that what he's doing in defending the case is 10]/ a violation for which he should be further prosecuted? 11 MR. GARCIA: Absolutely not. 12 THE COURT: Anyone else for the plaintiffs? 13 MR. HOROWITZ: Judge, Adam Horowitz, counsel for 14] plaintiffs Jane Doe 2 through 7. 15 I just wanted to address a point that I think you've 16} articulated it. I just want to make sure it's crystal clear, 17]} which is that we can't paint a broad brush for all of the 18] cases. 19 The provision relating to Mr. Epstein being unable to 20] contest liability pertains only to those plaintiffs who have 21]| chosen as their sole remedy the federal statute. My clients, 22]| Jane Doe 2 through 7, have elected to bring additional causes 23]} of action, and it's for that reason we were silent when you 24]} said does anyone here find Mr. Epstein to be in breach of the 25} non-prosecution agreement. That provision, as we understand TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180333

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

‘Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 30 of 51 39 1} it, it doesn't relate to our clients. 2 THE COURT: Okay. But, again, you're in agreement 3} with everyone else so far that's spoken on behalf of a 4]|| plaintiff that defending the case in the normal course of 5]| conducting discovery and filing motions would not be a breach? 6 MR. HOROWITZ: Subject to your rulings, of course, 7] yes. 8 THE COURT: Thank you. 9 Anyone else have anything to say from the plaintiffs? 10 Ms. QM. if you would be so kind as to maybe 11] help us out. I appreciate the fact that you're here, and I 12] know you're not a party to these cases and under no obligation 13} to respond to my inquiries. But as I indicated, it would be 14] helpful for me to understand the Government's position. 15 Ms. QJ: «Thank you, Your Honor. And we, of 16}}| course, are always happy to try to help the Court as much as 17] possible. But we are not a party to any of these lawsuits, and 18] in some ways we are at a disadvantage because we don't have 19] access. My access is limited to what's on Pacer. So I don't 20) really know what positions Mr. Epstein may have taken either in 21]| correspondence or in discovery responses that aren't filed in 22] the case file. 23 But your first order was really just what do you think 24]| about a stay, and then the second order related to this hearing 25]/ and asked a much more specific question, which is whether we TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180334

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

‘Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 1] believe that Mr. Epstein's defense was a breach of the 2 3 > 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 agreement. And I've tried to review as many of the pleadings as possible. As you know, they're extremely voluminous. And I haven't been through all of them. But we do believe that there has been a breach in the filing that Mr. Josefsberg referred to, and contrary to Mr. Critton, we do understand that we have an obligation to provide notice, and we are providing notice to Mr. Epstein today. The pleading that we found to be in breach -- the non-prosecution agreement, sought to do one thing, which was to place the victims in the same position they would have been if Mr. Epstein had been convicted of the federal offenses for which he was investigated. And that if he had been federally prosecuted and convicted, the victims would have been entitled to restitution, regardless of how long ago the crimes were committed, regardless of how old they were at the time, and how old they are today, or at the time of the conviction. And it also would have made them eligible for damages under 2255. And so our idea was, our hope was that we could set up a system that would allow these victims to get that restitution without having to go through what civil litigation will expose them to. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180335 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 31 of 51 3;

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

’ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Pr N w 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 You have a number of girls who were very hesitant about even speaking to authorities about this because of the trauma that they have suffered and about the embarrassment that they were afraid would be brought upon themselves and upon their families. So we did through the non-prosecution agreement tried to protect their rights while also protecting their privacy. So, pursuant to the non-prosecution agreement -- on the other hand, we weren't trying to hand them a jackpot or a key toa bank. It was solely to sort of put them in that same position. So we developed this language that said if -- that provided for an attorney to represent them. Most of the victims, as you know from the pleadings, come from not wealthy circumstances, may not have known any attorneys who would be in a position to help them. So we went through the Special Master procedure that resulted in the appointment of Mr. Josefsberg, and the goal was that they would be able to try to negotiate with Mr. Epstein for a fair amount of restitution/damages. And if Mr. Epstein took the position, which apparently he has, which is that the $50,000 or $150,000 floor under 2255 also would be a cap. That if they were to proceed to file suit in Federal Court to get fair damages under 2255, Mr. Epstein would admit liability, but he, of course, could fight the damages portion, which means that, of course, he would be entitled to depositions; of TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180336 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 32 of 51 32

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

' Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 w 10 as 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 course, he would be entitled to take discovery, and we don't believe that any of that violates the non-prosecution agreement. The issue with the pleading that he filed, the motion to dismiss the case, I believe it's Jane Doe 101, represented by Mr. Josefsberg, is that that is a case that was filed exclusively under 18 U.S.C., Section 2255. She met that requirement. Mr. Epstein is moving to dismiss it, not on the basis of damages, he is saying that he cannot be held liable under 2255 because he was not convicted of an offense. The reason why he was not convicted of an offense is because he entered into the non-prosecution agreement. So that we do believe is a breach. The issue really that was raised in the motion to stay and that I addressed in our response to the motion to stay is that Mr. Epstein's -- Mr. Epstein wants to stay the litigation in order to leave, in order to sort of attack the cases of the victims whether they are fully within the non-prosecution or not, non-prosecution agreement or not, and leave the Government without a remedy if he does, in fact, breach those terms. And that is why we opposed the stay. THE COURT: I'm not sure what you mean by that last statement. MS. QM: «Well, because this issue related to the motion to dismiss on Mr. Josefsberg's client came up after TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180337 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 33 of 51 33

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 34 of 51 34 1] we had filed that response. And what we said in the response 2]) to the motion to stay is that the reason why he wants to stay w the litigation is so that the non-prosecution agreement > terminates based on a period of time, as he puts it. And then 5] afterwards he would be able to come in here and make all of 6|| these arguments that clearly violate the non-prosecution 7]| agreement but we would be without remedy. 8 THE COURT: But you're not taking the position that 9], other than possibly doing something in litigation which is a 10} violation of an express provision of the non-prosecution 11] agreement, any other discovery, motion practice, investigations 12]| that someone would ordinarily do in the course of defending a 13} civil case would constitute a violation of the agreement? 14 MS. QJ: §=No, Your Honor. I mean, civil 15]} litigation is civil litigation, and being able to take 16] discovery is part of what civil litigation is about. And while 17} there may be, for example, if someone were to try to subpoena 18 || the Government, we would obviously resist under statutory 19] reasons, all that sort of stuff. But, no, Mr. Epstein is 20]} entitled to take the deposition of a plaintiff and to subpoena 21] records, etc. 22 THE COURT: And even if he seeks discovery from a 23] Government agency, you have the right to resist it under the 24] rules of procedure but that would not constitute a violation, 25} again unless there's a provision in the prosecution agreement TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180338

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

‘Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 1 w 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that says I can't do this? Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Your Honor. MS. EM: Correct. THE COURT: That's your position? MS. BJ: Ss Yes. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. EJ: 9 Thank you, THE COURT: Mr. MR. CRITTON: Yes, sir. of the issues that have been raised. The most glaring, at least from our perspective, Page 35 of 51 35 Critton, did you want to add anything? Just a few responses to some is both Mr. Josefsberg's comments that he believes that there's a violation of the NPA as well as Ms. QJ with regard to Jane Doe 101. Mr. Josefsberg, while he was the attorney rep who was selected by Judge Davis to represent a number of individuals, alleged victims that may have been on the list, he represents many of them. And the type of response that was filed in 101 would probably be very similar to what we will file if he files -- and he filed 102 as well. But if he files 103, 104 and 105, or whatever number he files, we may well take that same legal position in our motions and in our response or in reply. And what we've been, in essence, consider that to be a violation of the NPA under the circumstances. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION told today is we EFTA00180339

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

"Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 36 of 51 36 1 102 is a perfect example that he filed is, we have N e-mails going back and forth between the Government and my | w clients' attorneys at the time that suggested that 102 probably 4]| doesn't even fit within the statute of limitations. 5 So under Mr. Josefsberg's argument is as well, we've 6] only brought a 2255 claim. We don't care whether she's within 7\|/ or is outside the statute of limitations. Because she was on 8|| the list and under the circumstances, he has to admit 9] liability, which we contest is under that set of circumstances 10} you're stuck with it. You can fight damages if you can, but 11] she's a real person and you can't raise statute of limitations. 12 The other point that kind of strikes out is there's 13|| probably a difference. And I'm happy to provide a copy of the 14]| NPA or a redacted portion of the NPA which deals with the civil 15|) issues, which are paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10, and the entire 16] addenda in camera for the Court to look at, if plaintiff's 17]| counsel and the Government, I guess, really, because they're 18} not a party, is if they have no objection because they all have 19} access based on a prior court order to the non-prosecution 20 |] agreement. 21 So I'm happy to provide that to the Court today and 22|| show it to counsel so that the Court can review that. 23 But our position with regard to the 2255 claims is 24]] that -- there were two types of claims that could be filed, one 25] was consensual litigation, the second was contested litigation. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180340

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 37 of 51 37 1] And under the consensual, in essence, which Mr. Epstein did, is 2 he's offered $50,000 of the statutory minimum for that time 3] period to all of those individuals. 4 THE COURT: Can I interrupt you a second? 5 MR. CRITTON: Yes, sir. 6 THE COURT: I'm not here, and I don't believe it's my 7|| role to decide whether or not there is or is not a breach of 8|| the agreement. I'm just trying to understand what the 9]| Government's position is regarding your defending these cases. 10 Now, I'm just saying this as an example. If, for 11] example, in the non-prosecution agreement there was a provision 12) that said explicitly: Jeffrey Epstein shall not move to 13]| dismiss any claim brought under 2255 by any victim no matter 14] how long ago the allegations or the acts took place, period. 15 If that was in the agreement and you filed a motion to 16] dismiss by someone who brought a claim, it might sound like it 17]| might be a violation. 18 MR. CRITTON: I agree. 19 THE COURT: So you would know that when you filed your 20]} motion because it was right there for you to read. 21 And so to stay the case because I want to do something 22] that the contract expressly prohibits me from doing, so stay 23] the case until the agreement expires so then I can do something 24] that the agreement said I couldn't do so you won't be in fear 25|| of prosecuting, I'm not sure that that is what I'm concerned TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180341

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 38 of 51 3g 1] about. 2 I'm concerned about discovery, investigation, motion w practice, that's not prohibited by a provision of the 4]] agreement. If there's something that's prohibited by the 5]| agreement that you, knowing what the agreement says, go ahead 6] and do, anyway, I guess that's a risk you're going to have to 7) take. If there's a legitimate dispute about it, I guess some 8] arbiter is going to decide whether it's a breach or not. 9 But, again, that's something you and Mr. Burman, 10] Mr. Goldberger, and you are all very good lawyers, and he's got 11] a whole list of lawyers representing him, and you've got the 12] agreement and you're going to make legal decisions on how to 13] proceed, and you're going to have to go and make your own 14] decisions. 15 I'm concerned about things that aren't in the 16]| agreement, that aren't covered, that you're going to be accused 17] of violating because, again, you take depositions, you send out 18]} subpoenas, you file motions that are not prohibited by the 19]/ agreement. And that's what I'm concerned about. 20 MR. CRITTON: And I understand that, Your Honor. 21 But at the same time, it's as if the lawyers and the 22] clients, based upon our interpretation of the agreement, and, 23) believe me, we would not have filed 101, the motion to dismiss, 24] but for believing that there was a good faith basis to do that 25]) under the circumstances. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180342

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

’ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 rR w > 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 And now, in essence, we're being accused not only by -- not accused, but it's been suggested that there's a breach of the NPA, not only by Mr. Josefsberg on behalf of 101, but as well Ms. QJ on behalf of the United States. That's the perfect example. They're basically saying we think you violated. We may send you notice under the circumstances. So does that mean that on 101 we have to back off of it because we think in good faith that it's a motion and is that something that this Court ultimately will rule? THE COURT: I don't know that I'm the one who is going to make that decision. Again, that's not the kind of thing that I was concerned about. I was more concerned about the normal, ordinary course of conducting and defending a case that would not otherwise expressly be covered under the agreement, that you're going to then have someone say, ah, he's sent a notice of deposition, he's harassing the plaintiffs. I don't know if there's a no contact provision in the agreement or no harassment type of provision in the agreement. Ah, this is a breach because you sent discovery, or he's issuing subpoenas to third parties trying to find out about these victims' backgrounds, he's breaching the agreement. Those are the kind of things that I was worried about. MR. CRITTON: The concern that we have is as part of doing this general civil litigation, it's not just the discovery process. And I understand the issues that the Court TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180343 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 39 of 51 39 | | | |

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

‘ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 40 of 51 49 1] has raised. 2 But part of it is that often cases are disposed of 3] either on a summary basis or certainly legal issues that come 4]| before the Court during the course of the case, just like ina 5]| criminal case. That's clearly part of the, I'd say the defense 6] of the case under the circumstances; and if, in fact, an 7|| individual can't legally bring a cause of action for certain 8] reasons, such as has been suggested in 101, and may be 9]} suggested in 102 when that pleading is filed, that certainly is 10]/ a position that puts my client at risk. 11 As another example that I use with C.M.A., that they 12] filed this 30-count complaint. Now, they have the state court 13] claims as well. But they, in essence, have said they filed 14]| another pleading with the Court that says depending on what the 15]} Court rules, in essence, on whether we can file multiple claims 16]| or one cause of action with multiple violations, we may dump 17]/ the state court claims and, therefore, we'll just ride along on 18] that. That's a very different -- 19 Mr. Epstein would never have entered into, nor would 20]) his attorneys have allowed him to enter into that agreement 21} under those circumstances where he had this unlimited 22] liability. That clearly was never envisioned by any of the 23]| defendants -- by the defendant or any of his lawyers under the 24]) circumstances. 25 And if that's claimed to be a violation, either by the TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180344

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

’ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 41 of 51 44 1]/ attorneys; i.e., he's not recapitulating on liability under the 2] 2255, and that's all we have now. That's our exclusive remedy. 3 And the Government says, yeah, that's right, that's a 4]}/ violation of the NPA. It again chills us from moving forward, 5] filing the necessary motion papers and taking legal positions 6] that may put my client at risk for violating the NPA and then 7\| creating the irreparable harm of, after having been in jail, 8] after having pled guilty to the state court counts, after 9]| registering on release as a sex offender, he's complied and 10]| done everything, taken extraordinary efforts to comply with the 11] NPA, puts him at substantial risk. And that's what our worry 12} is moving forward. 13 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, may I be heard. May I 14]} make three comments? It will take less than a minute. 15 THE COURT: Yes, sir. 16 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Mr. Critton refers to the alleged 17} victims. I want you to know that our position is that pursuant 18] to the NPA they're not alleged victims. They are actual, real 19] victims, admitted victims. 20 Secondly, he argues about the statute of limitations 21]/0on 102. I know that you don't want to hear about that, and I'm 22]] not going to comment about it. But please don't take our lack 23} of argument about this as being we agree with anything. 24 Last and most important, we totally agree with 25] Mr. Critton in his suggestion that he hand you a copy of the TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180345

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

‘Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 42 of 51 42 1]/ NPA. I think that many of the questions you asked will be 2) answered when you read the NPA, and I think it's very unfair of w everyone who is sitting in front of you who have the NPA to be 4]| discussing with you whether it's being breached, whether there 5]| should be a stay when you're not that familiar with it. 6 If we would give you a copy of it, I think it would be 7} much more helpful in making your ruling. 8 THE COURT: Maybe Judge Colvat will resolve this issue 9} for me. 10 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Even if he doesn't, Your Honor, I 11]] believe we are allowed to show it to you. 12 THE COURT: I'll tell you what: I'11l wait for Judge 13]| Colvat to rule, and then if he rules that it should remain 14]| sealed, then I'1l1 consider whether or not I want to have it 15]} submitted to me in camera. 16 Anything else, Mr. Josefsberg? 17 MR. JOSEFSBERG: No. I thank you on behalf of myself 18} and the other counsel on the phone for permitting us to appear 19] by phone. 20 THE COURT: All right. Anyone else have anything they 21] want to add? 22 MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards on behalf of Jane Doe. 23 I only had one issue here, and when I read your motion 24]| that you wanted to hear on the narrow issue of just defense in 25] the civil actions filed against him violates the TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180346

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

’ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 43 of 51 43 1]/ non-prosecution agreement, I was expecting that we were going 2, to hear something from the Government similar to the affidavit w that was filed by Mr. Epstein's attorneys wherein he indicates 4]/ as of the day of this affidavit attached to the motion to stay, 5] the U.S. Attorney's Office has taken the position that Epstein 6]| has breached the non-prosecution agreement and it names 7|| specifically investigation by Epstein of this plaintiff and 8] other plaintiffs, Epstein's contesting damages in this action. 9] Epstein, or his legal representatives, making statements to the 10) press. And we didn't hear any of those things. 11 So that's what I was expecting that the U.S. 12] Attorney's Office was going to expound on and say, yes, we've 13} made some communications to Epstein. He's violating. 14 What we're hearing right now, today, just so that I'm 15|| clear, and I think the Court is clear now, is that the 16} non-prosecution agreement is what it is. There have been no 17} violations, but for maybe what Mr. Josefsberg brought up. 18 But there are very few restrictions on Mr. Epstein. 19]| He went into this eyes wide open. And whether or not I agree 20]| with the agreement, how it came to be in the first place, is 21] neither here nor there. 22 But there have been no violations or breaches up to 23} this point. And his affidavit that was filed, I'm just 24] troubled by where it even came from. I mean, it's making 25]| specific allegations that the U.S. Attorney's Office is TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180347

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

‘Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 44 of 51 44 a) threatening a breach, and this is part of the motion to stay, NS which we're all battling here. w So I just wanted to indicate to the Court or remind 4] the Court that there have been specific allegations made, the 5]/ United States Attorney's Office is making these allegations of 6|| breach, which we haven't heard any of the evidence of. 7 Thank you. 8 THE COURT: All right. 9 Ms. QM, did you want to respond to that 10] suggestion that there were other allegations of breach besides 11]} the one that you've just mentioned today? 12 MS. QJ: §9No, Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: Thank you. I appreciate your giving me 14]| the information, which I think has been very helpful today, and 15|/ I'11 try and get an order out as soon as possible. 16 {Court adjourned at 11:10 a.m.]. 17 CERTIFICATE 18 I hereby certify that the foregoing is an accurate 19]] transcription of proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 20 s/Larry Herr 21 DATE LARRY HERR, RPR-~CM-RMR-FCRSC 22 Official United States Court Reporter 400 N. Miami Avenue 23 Miami, FL 33128 - 305/523-5290 (Fax) 305/523-5639 24 email: Lindsay165@aol.com 25 Quality Assurance by Proximity Linguibase Technologies EFTA00180348

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

‘ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 A abide 27:15 ability 18:8 19:1 able 20:14 27:9 32:18 34:5,15 about 4:24 5:25 6:10 6:18 9:2 11:15 13:22 20:25 21:13 23:13 25:23 27:2 27:11,23 28:16 30:24 32:2,2,3 34:16 38:1,2,7,15 38:19 39;12,12,20 39;22 41;20,21,22 41:23 above 25:3 above-entitled 44:19 Absolutely 29:11 access 30:19,19 36:19 according 19:21 accurate 44:18 accused 22:23 38:16 39:1,2 action 7:13 8:5 9:8 10:3,4,9,21 11:18 15:4 17:24 18:17 20:2 21:22 27:10 29:23 40:7,16 43:8 actions 5:25 13:23 14:3 16:11 19:5,17 22:16 25:4 42:25 activities 23:7 acts 9:11,12 37:14 actual 41:18 actually 5:21 17:9 Adam 1:13 3:4 29:13 add 29:5 35:7 42:21 addenda 36:16 Adderly 3:17 additional 29:22 address 29;15 addressed 33:15 adjourned 44:16 Adler 1:17 admit 20:3,18 25:11 32:23 36:8 admits 23:20 admitted 23:17 24:9 41:19 ado 23:13 advantage 20:24 adverse 18:18 advice 12:7 affidavit 43;2,4,23 afraid 32:4 after 33:25 41:7,8,8 afterwards 34:5 again 9:10,18,22 10:19,20 18:5,9 23:18 26:1 30:2 34:25 38:9,17 39:11 41:4 against 4:23,25 6:24 22:15 26:4 29:1 42:25 agency 34:23 ago 31:17 37:14 agree 13:13 17:23 25:25 26:7 27:9 37:18 41:23,24 43:19 agreed 17:9 20:2 21:15 25:16 agreement 5:2,2,11 5:15 6:2,23 7:16 7:19 8:5,6 12:9 13:24 14;2,19 15:20 16:20 18:18 18:24 19:6,11,13 19:18,24 20:1,10 20:18 21:7,16,23 22:8,11,17,19,20 22:23 23:18,19,20 24:1,9,23 27:25 28:2,5,19,25 29:6 29:7,25 30:2 31:2 31:11 32;6,8 33:3 33:12,19 34:3,7,11 34:13,25 36:20 37:8,11,15,23,24 38:4,5,5,12,16,19 38:22 39:14,17,18 39:21 40:20 43:1,6 43:16,20 ah 39:15,18 ahead 28:8 38:5 al l:4 allegation 5:1 15:19 allegations 4:25 16:6 37:14 43:25 44:4,5 44:10 alleged 17:17,25 35:16 41:16,18 allow 11:8 31:23 allowed 40:20 42:11 along 40:17 already 22:5 always 30:16 Amendment 6;24 America 5:17 amount 17:3,20 23:25 24:3,9,16,24 25:3 32:19 Amy 3:17 Ann 2:14 4:9 another 9:5 14:14 18:11 40:11,14 answer 8:7 13:10 answered 42:2 anybody 11:14 anyone 14;16,19 17:5 22:13 24:17 24:24 29:12,24 30:9 42:20 anything 8:22 11:15 13:22 14:2,7,20,25 16:10 18:11 21:12 30:9 35:7 41:23 42:16,20 anyway 38:6 apparently 32:20 appear 3:19 25:6 42:18 appearances 1:12 3:3,25 appears 27:2 applicable 6:13 18:3 apply 20:6 28;9 appointed 21:2 appointment 25:15 32:17 appreciate 30:11 44:13 appropriate 19:21 24:7 arbiter 38:8 argue 18:1 22:1 argued 12:22 argues 41:20 argument 36:5 41:23 arguments 34:6 arise 7:5 around | 2:9 28:21 articulated 29:16 asked 5:4,4 8:2 14:5 30:25 42:1 asking 21:12 25:10 asks 13:10 aspect 28:12 aspects 9:1,2 16:5 assert 29:8 asserted 17:7 assertion 4:24 15:19 15:22 Assistant 2:15 associate 10:17 associated 18:12 assurance 14:1) assurances 12:5 attached 43:4 attack 33:17 attention 15:1,22 Atterbury 2:12 attorney 2:15 7:1 19:4 27:;17,18,19 32:12 35:14 attorneys 5:9 10:10 11:8 32:14 36:3 40:20 41:1 43:3 Attorney's 4;8,10 26:19 27:4 43:5,12 43:25 44:5 August 12:18 Australian 2:12 authorities 32:2 Avenue 1:21,23 2:12 2:23 44:22 aware 6:6 13:14 15:4 a.m 44:16 B back 12:18 36:2 39:7 backgrounds 39;21 balance 12:15 bank 32;10 based 6:12 10:7 12:6 13:11 17:4 34:4 36:19 38:22 basically 7:16 13:10 39:5 basis 33:9 38:24 40:3 battling 44:2 Beach 1:2,4,21 2:10 2:13 before 1:11 6:5 15;13,18 24:10,11 24:13 40:4 behalf 3:14 4:2,6 6:7 14:16 22:10 26:10 26:15 30:3 39:3,4 42:17,22 being 9:17 10:6,21 23:19 26:4 28:19 29:19 34:15 39:1 41:23 42:4 believe 3:18 5:10,10 5:14,16 6:17,17,21 7:13,19 8:11 14:18 21:11 31:1,5 33:2 33:5,13 37:6 38:23 42:11 believes 35:11 believing 38:24 beneficiaries 19:12 beneficiary 20:1 21:16 25:15 Bennett 3:18 besides 44;10 between 8:6 9:23 13:1,21 19:14 20:11 36:2 beyond 13:16 Biscayne 1:14 Bob 3:18 19:7 Boehringer 1;20 bond 25:22 Boston 2:18 both 10:10 16:25 35:11 bought 28:22 Boulevard 1:14,17 2:15 Brad 3:7 42:22 BRADLEY 1:16 breach 6;1,23 15:11 16:3 18:24 19:6,13 23:16 25:9,9 28:2 29:24 30:5 31:1,6 31:10 33:13,20 37:7 38:8 39:2,19 44:1,6,10 breached 7:19 12:24 15:20 22:11 42:4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 45 off. 43:6 breaches 7:15,17 19:11 21:11 22:16 43:22 breaching 22:19,20 22:23 39:21 brief 15:18,23 briefing 5:4 briefly 27:22 bring 29:22 40:7 broad 29:17 brought 15:1 20:2 24:17,20 28:6 32:4 |) 36:6 37:13,16 43:17 Broward 2:15 brush 29:17 buffer 12:25 Burman 2:8,9 4:3 38:9 business 13:25 Cc C 2:1 44:17,17 came 6:5 12:18 17:6 18:22 33:25 43:20 43:24 camera 36:16 42:15 cap 32:21 capped 23:25 care 13:20,25 25:20 29:5 36:6 case 1:3 5:17,20,21 §:22 6:4,7 8:12 9:11 10:24,24 11:4 | 11:15,18 13;18,20 14:18,22 15:1,18 16:2 19:17 22:17 22:25 23:4,8,8 24:17,20 26:3,4 28:10 29:4,6,9 30:4,22 33:5,6 34:13 37:21,23 39:13 40:4,5,6 cases 3:2 6:9 7:3,11 8:13,22 9:3,5,5,15 10:3,11 12:1,2 14:9 17:15,16 21:10 24:8,11 26:2 | 29:18 30:12 33:17 37:9 40:2 casts 9:13 catastrophic 7:21 catch 7:21 10:2 caught 15:22 cause 17:24 18:17 26:5 40:7,16 caused 15:21 causes 29:22 cavalierly 12:13 certain 8:22 11:18 40:7 certainly 8:16 9:1 EFTA00180349 17:2,6 21:17 25:16

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 29:3 40:3,9 Certified 2:22 certify 44:18 change 7:25 changes 7:8 charges 5:3 chilling 9:7 chills 10;9 18:25 41:4 chime 26:9 chosen 29:21 circumstance 7;21 8:18 18:4 circumstances 9:25 10:1,11 12:11,20 12:21 13:8,13 16:8 16:17 17:3,8,13,18 18:19 32:14 35:25 36:8,9 38:25 39:7 40:6,21,24 cite 17;10 civil 4;23,25 5:25 7:3 7:3,11 8:5,22 9:4,7 9:11 10:3,23,23 13:23 14:3,9 15:7 16;5,11 19:5 20:20 22:14 26:25 27:10 31:24 34:13,14,15 34:16 36:14 39:24 42:25 claim 6:1 18:19 23:21,23 25:8 36:6 37:13,16 claimed 40:25 claiming 25:9 claims 22:15 23:22 23:22 24:1,4,6 28:6 36:23,24 40:13,15,17 clear 10:7 18:18 19:19 29:16 43:15 43:15 clearly 9:24 11:20 34:6 40:5,22 client 10;21 13:5 23:2 24:3 26:15 28:3 33:25 40:10 41:6 clients 11:9 21:24 22:10,24 23:3 25:16 29:21 30:1 36:3 38:22 client's 29:3 cloud 9:14 Colvat 42;8,13 come 8:8,13 13:11 21:1 23:6 32:13 34:5 40:3 comes 18:12 coming 26:25 comment 41:22 comments 15:10 35:11 41:14 commitment 17;2 Document 180 committed 31;17 communications 43:13 complainants 17;9 complaining 25:11 26:19 complaint 28:4 40:12 compliance 12:14 complied 41:9 comply 41:10 concern 4:24 5;10,24 9:20 16:1 22:8 25:24 26:1 39:23 concerned 13:22 23:10 27:11 37:25 38:2,15,19 39:12 39:12 concerns 6:24 conduct 22:14 conducting 22:13 30:5 39:13 confident 19:10 consensual 16:25 36:25 37:1 consider 6:14 18:1 23:16 35:24 42:14 constitute 13:18 16:2 19:6 34:13,24 construed 14:18 contact 10:17 39:17 contending 19:4 contention 4:24 contentions 28:8 contest 17:12 18:7,8 24:18,21,23,25 29:20 36:9 contested 9:13 16:18 16:25 36:25 contesting 20:6 25:2 28:1 43:8 context 13:18,19 14:5 15:1 contract 7:16 37:22 contracting 9:23 contrary 25:6 31:7 control 9:2 convicted 20:14 31:13,16 33:10,11 conviction 20:8,15 20:20 31:19 copy 28:4 36:13 41:25 42:6 correct 5:12 23:1 24:5 35:2 correspondence 30:21 counsel 3:3,4,7 12:7 16:5 23:13 26:8,25 27:22 28:11,20 29:13 36:17,22 42:18 count 24:14 counts 17:17 41:8 course 7:5 24:25 26:21 27:12 30:4,6 30:16 32:24,25 33:1 34:12 39:13 40:4 court 1:1 2:22 3:1,6 3:9,12,15,20,22,24 4:4,7,11,15,20 5:11,14,18,19,21 5:24 6:6,11,13,14 6:18,20,21,22 7:6 8:1 9:6 11:3,10,25 12:19 13:1,10,16 14:5,11 15:5,13,15 16:10,13,22 19:2,9 21:12,25 23:18 25:23 26:1,8,13,17 26:18,23 27:9,14 27:16,18,20 28:1,4 28:4,11,13,14,16 29:4,8,12 30:2,8 30:16 32:22 33:22 34:8,22 35:3,5,7 36:16,19,21,22 37:4,6,19 39:9,10 39:25 40:4,12,14 40:15,17 41:8,15 42:8,12,20 43:15 44:3,4,8,13,16,22 court's 7:15 8:25 12:14 covered 38:16 39:14 create 9:25 creating 41:7 creative 17:23 crimes 31:17 criminal 8:21 20:15 26:6 28:22 40:5 criteria 17:6 Critton 2:8,9 4:2,2 4:13 5:13 6:3,3 14:4 15:3,14 16:4 16:12,15 31:7 35:7 35:8 37:5,18 38:20 39:23 41:16,25 erystal 29:16 cure 8:14,17 9:21 13:6 cures 14:12 current 22:5 cut 16:24 C.MLA 1:24 3:14 17:16 24:11 26:10 26:15 40:11 D 1:13 2:8 damages 17:3 23:23 23:25 24:3,10,24 25:2 31:20 32:23 32:24 33:9 36:10 43:8 date 13:12,14 44:21 Datura 1;21 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Davis 21:2 35:15 day 43:4 deal 9:23 14:13,14 15:15 16:24,24 18:6,9 deals 36:14 dealt 6:19 16:25,25 decide 10:11 22:5 37:7 38:8 decision 39:11 decisions 38:12,14 deem 11:19 deemed 10:4 defend 5:25 10:11 11:18 12:1,2 22:17 22:18,22,25 24:2 26:3 defendant 1:8 2:8 6:23 11:13 16:16 22:15,18 27:10 40:23 defendants 25:5 40:23 defendant's 16;23 defending 4:25 7:24 9:4 10:2,23 13:18 13:20,23 14:3,9,18 15:18 16:2,10 25:18 29:9 30:4 34:12 37:9 39:13 defends 26:3 defense 4:1,14 8:4,12 9:3,12,14 10:9 12:3 19:5,17 24:6 24:18 27:22 28:11 28:20 31:1 40:5 42:24 denied 22:5 deny 22:4,7 depending 18:2 40:14 depo 29:3 depose 23:2 deposition 11;11,12 14:23 22:24 34:20 39:16 depositions 10:13 14:22 19:20 22:12 22:20 23:15 32:25 38:17 desired 20:12 determine 9:8 developed 32:11 difference 36:13 different 6:5 12:21 16:19 23:7 40:18 direction 10:20 27:14 disadvantage 30:18 disagree 20:5,21 discovery 7:2,10,11 10:16,25 22:12 29:4 30:5,21 33:1 34:11,16,22 38:2 Page 46 ob&de 46 39:19,25 discretionary 6:19 6:21 discuss 9:22 23:6 discussing 42:4 discussion 16:22 disingenuous 19;15 dismiss 7:22 8:18 10:14 20:4 27:24 33:5,8,25 37:13,16 | 38:23 disposed 40:2 dispute 38:7 distinet 7:9 DISTRICT 1:1,1,11 DIVISION 1:2 docket 6:17 8:25 12:14 documents 11:7 14:24 Doe 1:4,15,18,22 2:3 2:7 3:1,5,8,11 5:17 |) 6:8,9,16 11:12 21:5 29:14,22 33:5 |) 35:13 42:22 doing 8:9 29:9 34:9 37:22 39:24 done 12:3,4 13:17,19 | 13:24 14:2,7,17,20 |, 14:25 15:6 17:14 20:16 25:4 29:4 41:10 doubt 9:14 dramatic 7:25 dramatically 7:8 dump 40:16 during 40:4 —____E E44:17,17 each 17:24 18:16 East 1:17 2:15 Edwards 1:16 3:7,7 5:16,20,23 42:22 42:22 effect 9:7 17:5 efforts 41:10 either 9:3 10:5 30:20 |) 40:3,25 elected 29:22 eligible 31:20 Elkins 1:20 email 44:24 embarrassment 32:3 enforce 21:17 25:17 enforcement 7:2 enforcing 25;10 enter 40:20 entered 33:12 40:19 entire 5:15 20:25 36:15 entitle 11:23 entitled 24:2 31:16 32:25 33:1 34:20 EFTA00180350

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

’ Case’9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 47 off entry 6:17 8:25 extraordinary 9:13 | form 11:4 7:18 8:1,2,7 9:21 35:6 38:20 41:13 12:14 41:10 Fort 1:18 2:16 10:8 11:19 12:6 42:10 44:12 enumerated 18:8,9 | extremely 31:4 forth 36:2 13:1,2,2,9,11,13 HONORABLE 1:11 envisioned 40:22 eyes 26:24 43:19 forward 9:8 13:11 14:1,5 15:23 16:19 | hope 31:22 Epstein 1:7 3:1 4:3,6 | Ezell 2:5 3:16,17 17:6 19:1 21:1 17:11 18:4,12,17 | hopefully 13:3 4:22 6:7 7:13,15 e-mails 36:2 22:17 23:6 26:2 20:11,11 21:13,14 | Horowitz 1:13,14 7:19 8:6,20 9:15 | 29:7 414,12 23:10,11 25:11 3:4,4 29:13,13 9:18,24 10:1,6,10 | . | found 31:10 29:9 33:19 34:18 30:6 12:5,15 13:17,21 F 44:17 four 9:5 34:23 36:2,17 41:3 | horrible 21:23 14:8 17:9 19:5,14 | fact 7:1 8:11 11:19 frankly 5:6 43:2 humiliated 20:25 19:16 20:11,13 14:20 28:4 30:11 from 3:17 4:7 5:9 7:9 | Government's 5:6,8 | hypocritical 19;25 21:8 23:13 24:21 33:20 40:6 10:20,24 13:9 7:25 9:10 12:20,23 | — . 25:16 26:3,23 factors 11:23 14:13 15:9 16:23 15:16 18:22 25:13 | .__1 1 28:22 29:19,24 fair 27:6 32:19,23 17:10 19:2 30:9 30:14 37:9 idea 17:1 31:22 30:20 31:9,13 faith 38:24 39:8 32:13,13 34:22 grant 22:4 111:22 3:11 32:18,19,23 33:8 | familiar 42:5 35:10 37:22 41:4 | granted 22:2 impact 16:18 33:16 34:19 37:1 families 32:5 43:2,24 great 7:23 8:20 9:19 | important 41:24 37:12 40:19 43:5,7 | far 14:25 21:17 front 9:5 12:19 10:22 12:17 15:15 | impose 27:4 43:9,13,18 23:10 24:24 30:3 25:10 42:3 20:8,24 incident 24:14 Epstein's 4:24 5:9,24 | fashion 8:4 fully 33:18 ground 22:3 incidents 17:25 8:4 9:1 22:7 31:1 favor 12:16 further 29:10 guess 36:17 38:6,7 incredible 7:21 33:16 43:3,8 Fax 44:23 future 9:12 10:5 guilty 17:11 41:8 incredulous 19:15 equities 12:16 fear 9:14 37;24 12:5 26:21,22 a | indicate 44:3 error 27:7,7 federal 5:3 28:6 : H___ | indicated 30:13 ESQ 1:13,16,20,23 29:21 31:13 32:22 | EG 23 indicates 43:3 2:1,5,8,8,11,14,17 | federally 2:22 31:15 | G2:17 hand 32:9,9 41:25 indict 7:20,20,22 2:20 fees 21:8,10 25:10 Garcia 1:20,20 3:10 | hanging 11:19 8:13,16,17 12:10 essence 7:9,12 8:3 few 35:8 43:18 3:10 27:20,21 happen 14:13 22:6 12:24 15:10 18:23 10:2 12:3 35:23 field 7:8 28:15,18 29:11 happens 28:3 21:14 37:1 39:1 40:13,15 | Fifth 6:24 gather 22:21 happy 30:16 36:13 | indicted 9:17 10:6 essentially 28:22 fight 32:24 36:10 gave 16:1 36:21 10:22 1 et 1:4 file 21:4 28:13 30:22 | general 39:24 harassing 39:16 indictment 8:19 10:7 | ete 2:9 34:21 32:22 35:18 38:18 | generally 10:22 harassment 39:18 individual 18:16 even 11:5,6,9 14:1 40:15 getting 24:11 25:19 | harm 10:1 41:7 40:7 15:17 16:1 17:22 | filed 5:11,16,21,23 girls 20:7 23:5 25:20 | having 27:2,11 individuals 10:18 21:3,4 32:2 34:22 6:7,10 10:8 11:9 32:1 31:24 41:7,8 17:1 35:15 37:3 36:4 42:10 43:24 15:18,23,24 20:20 | give 12:5 14:142:6 | hear 5:9 26:12 41:21 | information 22:21 event 5:24 28:3 30:21 33:4,6 | given 28:4 42:24 43:2,10 44:14 ever 5:11,14 34:1 35:17,19 36:1 | giving 44:13 heard 19:2 41:13 initial 12:19 15:21 everyone 30:3 42:3 36:24 37:15,19 glaring 18:21 35:10 44:6 initially 15:24 everything 15:7 38:23 40:9,12,13 | glasses 11:16 hearing 1:10 4:21 injury 10:23 23:22 41:10 42:25 43:3,23 go 12:10 15:13 22:17 | 30:24 43:14 innocent 27:5 evidence 25:1 44:6 files 35:19,19,20 24:24 26:2 28:8 held 33:9 inquiries 30:13 exact 21;18,22 28:20 | filing 30:5 31:6 41:5 29:7 31:24 38:5,13 | help 30:11,16 32:15 | inquiry 7:15 15:16 exactly 10:24 filings 7:8 goal 32:17 helpful 5:7 25:12 instance 7:18,24 example 14:20 16:21 | filter 11:7 going 3:18 5:25 12:4 30:14 42:7 44:14 9:18 10:10 11:3,17 17:16 34:17 36:1 financial 23:12 12:10 13:23,25 her 26:4 28:4 13:5 16:14 37:10,11 39:5 find 5:6 6:13 19:15 14:11,13 15:18 Herr 2:21 44:20,21 | instances 16:4 40:11 19:25 23:11 29:24 16:2 19:5 22:4,6,9 | hesitant 32:1 intended 28:21 except 8:20 11:25 39:20 22:18,23 23;10,14 | hey 22:19 intent 21:19 | exclusive 41:2 firm's 6:6 23:24 26:5 28:8,11 | him 4:23 7:20,20,22 | intention 9:19 26:19 |, exclusively 28:6 33:7 | first 5:9 16:14 19:3 29:8 36:2 38:6,8 8:13,16,17 9:15,20 | 26:20,20 27:16 exists 13:15 26:18 30:23 43:20 38:12,13,16 39:10 11:23 12:521:14 | interest 23:12 expecting 43:1,11 fit 36:4 39:15 41:22 43:1 21:15 25:10,11 interested 13:17 expires 37:23 FL 1:15,18,21,24 2:3 | 43:12 26:4,5,13 28:24 14:3 i explicitly 37:12 2:6,10,13,16,23 Goldberger 2:11,12 38:11 40:20 41:11 | interpretation 16:20 | expose 5:1,25 31:24 44:23 4:5,6 38:10 42:25 38:22 i exposure 22:7 Flagler 2:2,6,9 gone 15:7 himself 5:1,3 interrogatories expound 43;12 floor 32:21 good 3:6,9,10,12,13 | Honor 3:10,13,16,21 14:24 19:20 express 34:10 FLORIDA 1:1,4 3:15,16,22,23 4:4 4:2,5,9,13,17,19 interrupt 37:4 expressly 37:22 focused 15:15 4:5,9,11,16,18,20 5:13,16 6:4 12:12 | introduced 20:16 39:14 forced 19:17 17:16 38:10,24 19:1,7 23:1 24:5 intrusive 29:5 extensive 29:4 foregoing 44:18 39:8 25:22,25 26:7,12 invasive 19:22 extent 28:10 forgot 27:23 Government 7:7,9 27:21 30:15 34:14 | investigated 31:14 EFTA00180351

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

‘Case’9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 investigation 10:18 38:2 43:7 investigations 22:13 34:11 invited 27:6 involvement 6:6 irreparable 9:16 10:1 41:7 ISIDRO 1:20 issue 4:23 6:5,11,19 7:4 11:25 12:18,22 14:14 15:25 16:2 16:13,22 18:12,22 21:18 28:10,16 33:4,14,24 42:8,23 42:24 issued 14:25 issues 4:21 24:10,13 25:21,23 35:9 36:15 39:25 40:3 issuing 22:20 39:19 Le 41:1 J 1:16 Jack 2:11 4:5 jackpot 32:9 jail 41:7 Jane 1:4,15,18,22 2:3,7 3:5,5,7,11 5:17 6:8,9,16 11:12 21:4 29:14 29:22 33:5 35:13 42:22 Jay 2:20 4:18 Jeffrey 1:7 37:12 jeopardize 9:15 jeopardy 15:17 join 26:11,15 Josefsberg 2:1,2,5 3:18,20,21,23 19:7 19:7,10 21:25 23:1 24:5 25:25 26:7,11 26:12,16 27:13 31:6 32:17 33:6 35:14 39:3 41:13 41:16 42:10,16,17 43:17 Josefsberg's 33:25 35:11 36:5 IR 2:8 Judge I:11 15:12 21;2 29:13 35:15 42:8,12 judgment 22:16 June 1:5 13:12 jurisdiction 28:1 ,6 just 18;23 20:15,16 22:3,6 24:20 26:1 29:15,16 30:23 35:8 37:8,10 39:24 40:4,17 42:24 43:14,23 44:3,11 KO Katherine 2:5 3:16 keep 24:21 KENNETH 1:11 key 32:9 kind 30:10 36:12 39:11,22 knew 27:1 know 4:22 6:17 8:21 11:14 12:2 13:9,17 14:21 15:5,7 16:22 19:23 22:6 23:12 25:9 27:1 30:12,20 31:4 32:13 37:19 39:10,17 41:17,21 knowing 26:25 38:5 knowledge 5:13 13:11 known 21:4 32:14 knows 11:3 13:2 ae lack 41:22 ladies 20:23 21:3,20 Lake 1:24 language 18:14 32:11 LARRY 2:21 44:21 Las 1:17 last 33:22 41:24 Lauderdale 1:18 2:16 law 7:1 27:24 28:9 lawsuit 25:18,19 lawsuits 30:17 lawyers 8:21 9:4,7 10:23,23 17:22 27:1 38:10,11,21 40:23 lay 8;10 least 35:10 leave 33:17,19 Lefkowitz 2:20 4:18 4:18 left 10:2 legal 10:13 24:10,13 35:21 38:12 40:3 41:5 43:9 legally 40:7 legitimate 38:7 less 41:14 let 5:9 13:10 19:19 letter 17:10 21:19 letters 16:6 liability 17:12 18:7,7 20:3,6,16,19 23:16 23:17,20 24:8,18 24:22,23 25:6,11 29:20 32:23 36:9 40:22 41:1 liable 33:9 like 7:16 13:9 25:21 37:16 40:4 limit 23:23 24:2 limitation 25:2 limitations 36:4,7,11 41;20 limited 4:21 8:3 14:5 17:12 20:19 23:25 30:19 limits 28:5 Lindsay 165@aol.c... 44:24 list 17:1,2,6 35:16 36:8 38:11 litigation 7:4,5 9:13 15:8 16:18,25 21:18 22:14 23:12 31:24 33:16 34:3,9 34:15,15,16 36:25 36:25 39:24 lives 21:21 long 31:17 37:14 longer 20:7 look 12:14 18:6 36:16 looked 6:11 LM M 1:20 MA 2:18 made 15;10,17 16:6 20:12 31:20 43:13 44:4 major 11:25 make 8:21 13:4 15:21 19:19 23:8 23:13 26:2,18 27:24 29:1,16 34:5 38:12,13 39:11 41:14 making 42:7 43:9,24 44:5 man 12;24 mandate 7:24 8:20 8:21 10:3 many 20:23 31:3 35:17 42:1 Marie 2:14 4:9 MARRA 1|:11 Martin 2:17 4:16 Master 21:2 32:16 matter 20:15 37:13 44:19 matters 21:11 may 3:3 5:1 7:2,10 9:9,12 10:4,17 11:19 13:17,18 14:18 15:12 16:18 16:19 17:12 19:8 19:16 20:4 21:11 21:17,21 23:6 27:22 30:20 32:14 34:17 35:16,20 39:6 40:8,16 41:6 41:13,13 maybe 12;17 13:10 17:20 30:10 42:8 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 43:17 mean 18:10 33:22 34:14 39:7 43:24 means 32:24 members 4:13 memo 7:14 28:9 memorandum 27:23 mentioned 44:11 merits 22:1 Mermelstein 1:14 met 17:6 33:7 Miami 1:15 2;3,6,23 2:23 44:22,23 Michael 2:8 4:3 microphone 26:13 might 14:2,12 22:14 29:5 37:16,17 million 17:21 minimum 17:3 25:3 37:2 minimums 24:25 minors 20:7 minute 18:13 41:14 mistakes 13:4 money 17:20 more 8:3 17:23 23:25 30:25 39:12 42:7 morning 3:6,9,10,12 3:13,15,16,22,23 4:4,5,9,11,16,18 4:20 most 7:7 13:3 15:24 18:21 32:12 35:10 41:24 motion 1:10 4:22 6:7 12:22 15:24 20:4 22:6 27:24 33:4,14 33:15,25 34:2,11 37:15,20 38:2,23 39:8 41:5 42:23 43:4 44:1 motions 10:14 17:15 21:5 30:5 35:21 38:18 move 7:22 8:18 19:1 19:20 21:17,21 37:12 moving 9:7 33:8 41:4,12 much 23:13 30:16 30:25 42:7 multiple 18:15 40:15 40:16 multitude 8:12 myself 16:5 42:17 names 11:9 23:5 43:6 narrow 42:24 nature 27:6 necessary 22:22 41:5 Page 48 obf4e need 24:22 25:23 negotiate 32:18 negotiated 27;3,3 neither 43:21 never 11:9 26:20 40:19,22 newspapers 23:5 nobody 11:14 none 13:25 non-contesting 28:5 non-position 9:10 non-prosecution 5:2 5:11 6:2 8:6 13:24 14:19 15:20 19:6 22:8 24:1 27:25 28:2,5,19,25 29:25 | 31:11 32:6,8 33:2 33:12,18,19 34:3,6 | 34:10 36:19 37:11 43:1,6,16 non-2255 24:4,6 normal 30:4 39:13 North 1:23 2;9,23 nothing 13:15 24:12 24:15 notice 8;13,16 9:21 13:6 14:23 22:24 31:8,8 39:6,16 noticed 14:22 notification 15:3,4 16:8 NPA 8:5,11,15,24 9:1,9,16,19,22 10:4,19,22 11:20 12:8,15,24 13:7,15 | 14:10 16:8 18:14 20:22 21:19,19 23:9 24:12,15,16 24:18,20 25:2,7 35:12,24 36:14,14 39:3 41:4,6,11,18 42:1,2,3 number 15:9 16:21 17:7,9,14,21,24 32:1 35:15,20 numerous 23:21 a | object 7:2,10,10 objection 36:18 objections 11:5,6 obligation 21:9 30:12 31:8 obtain 11:7 obviously 10;20 34:18 occurred 17:25 oceurs 26:21 off 39:8 offender 41:9 offense 18:8,10,15 33:10,11 offenses 18:16 31:13 offered 37:2 EFTA00180352

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

‘Case’9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 office 4:8,10 26:20 27:4 43:5,12,25 44:5 Official 2:22 44:22 officials 7:2 often 40:2 okay 3;25 5;19,21 18:10 30:2 Olas 1:17 old 31:18,18 once 22:5 one 4:23 7:17 11:25 17:24 18:5,16,20 18:21 20:1,8 22:24 31:11 36:24 39:10 40:16 42:23 44:11 only 13:22 14:3 17:24 23:20 25:4 29:20 36:6 39:1,3 42:23 open 26:24 43:19 opportunity 8:14,17 9:21 opposed 33;21 opposite 20:22 21:18 21:22 28:20 opposition 27:24 option 7:23 order 6:16 12:14 22:21 30:23,24 33:17,17 36:19 44:15 ordinarily 26:3 34:12 ordinary 27:10 39:13 originally 6:5 Orseck 2:2,5 3:17 other 7:1,17 16:4,5 17:22 22:13,18 23:6,21,22 24:1 25:21 26:8 32:8 34:9,11 36:12 42:18 43:8 44:10 otherwise 39:14 out 8:8 10:16 22:24 26:16,23 28:22 30:11 36:12 38:17 39:20 44:15 outside 13;18,19 24:17 36:7 over 11:19 24:24 own 12:21 38:13 Pacer 30:19 pages 7:14 27:23 28:9 paint 29:17 Palm 1:2,4,21 2:10 2:13 paper 10:16 13:7 papers 8:10,16 9:25 10:8 11:21 12:20 15:6,10 41:5 paragraphs 36:15 paraphrasing 6:20 Park 2:18 part 10:18 18:9 20;23 21:7 23:9,20 34:16 39:23 40:2,5 44:1 particular 6;15,18 7:24 8:22 9:18 11:17 13:5 parties 9:23 11:6 16:21 22:21 39:20 partner 3:18 4:3 parts 19:25 21:17 party 11:11 14:25 30:12,17 36:18 past 9:11 10:5 12:3,4 pay 17:3 21:8,10 25:5 pending 6:15 9:5 17:15 21:6 people 23:6 per 24:14,14,14,14 perception 28:21 perfect 36:1 39:5 perhaps 20:24 27:22 period 9:21 34:4 37:3,14 permitted 24:6,18 permitting 42:18 person 36:11 personal 10:23 23:21 perspective 16:23 35:10 pertains 29:20 phone 4:12,14,15 42:18,19 picking 12:13 place 31:12 37:14 43:20 plaintiff 3:7,14 24:15 30:4 34:20 43:7 plaintiffs 1:5,13 3:4 3:24 11:8 17:8,14 17:22 19:3 22:14 23:7,24 27:5 29:1 29:12,14,20 30:9 39:16 43:8 plaintiff's 19:4 26:8 36:16 playing 7:8 Plaza 2:18 plead 17:11 18:10,11 pleading 7:14 31:10 33:4 40:9,14 pleadings 23:4 31:3 32:13 please 41:22 pled 17:8,16 20:14 41:8 Podhurst 2:2,5 3:17 point 6:18 14:12 26:16,23 28:14 29:15 36:12 43:23 pointed 14:20 portion 32:24 36:14 portions 5:15 posed 11;25 posing 8:4 position 5:5,8 6:4 7:7 7:25 9:16,20 10:12 10:13 11:21,22 12:12,17,23 14:8,8 14:15 15:16 16:16 16:17 17:4,7 18:13 18:17 19:19 20:13 22:1,11 25:8 30:14 31:12 32;10,15,20 34:8 35:3,21 36:23 37:9 40:10 41:17 43:5 positions 30:20 41:5 possible 30:17 31:4 44:15 possibly 34:9 posting 25:22 potential 5:3 15:2 28:2 potentially 10:18 15:19 power 13:2 practical 10:25 15:9 practice 34:11 38:3 predicate 20:8,15 prepared 20:5 27:15 present 5:5 11:15 presents 9:7 press 43:10 pressure 21:15 presume 23:24 pretty 8:1 prior 6:6 8:25 12:14 36:19 privacy 19:22 32:7 probably 35:18 36:3 36:13 problem 14:12 22:22 23:2,3 28:18 procedure 32:16 34:24 proceed 12:10 18:23 32:22 38:13 proceeding 6:15,15 proceedings 4:23,25 44:19 process 39:25 production 14:24 19:20 prohibited 38:3,4,18 prohibits 37;22 proof 20:16 proper 25:1 27:14 27:15 prosecuted 20;13 26:4 27:11 29:10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 31:15 prosecuting 37:25 prosecution 26:6 28:23 29:6,7 34:25 prospect 16:15 protect 32:7 protecting 32:7 provide 31:8 36:13 36:21 provided 16:9 32:12 provides 9:22 providing 31:8 provision 6;12 8:11 29:19,25 34:10,25 37:11 38:3 39:17 39:18 provisions 13:6,7 psychologically 21:24 publish 23:5 pure 24:8 purpose 21:19,23 28:20 pursuant 25:15 32:8 41:17 pursue 23:12 pursuing 22:12,15 put 9:15 18:21 32:10 41:6 puts 18:25 34:4 40:10 41:11 9 question 8:3,7 9:2 12:1 30:25 questions 42:1 quite 19:10 R44:17 raise 16:2 36:11 raised 15:25 16:13 18:5,21 19:13 28:10 33:14 35:9 40:1 read 37:20 42:2,23 reading 18:18 23:19 ready 29:7 real 9:6 10:8 36:11 41:18 really 12:2 18:11 30:20,23 33:14 36:17 Realtime 2:22 reason 6:14 7:3 29:23 33:11 34:2 reasons 18:5,20 34:19 40:8 recapitulating 41:1 received 5:5 15:3,4 20:4 recent 7:7 15:24 records 34:2) redacted 36:14 Page 49 ob&de 49 reference 27:25 referred 31:6 refers 41:16 refusal 9:10 refuses 8:7 refusing 25:5 regard 9:11,12,13 10:12,13,14,14 11:4 12:19 14:9 16:18 18:23 35:12 36:23 regarding 6;24 23:15 37:9 regardless 31:17,18 registering 41:9 relate 9:3 30:1 i related 30;24 33:24 | relates 8:12 1 relating 29:19 release 41:9 relevant 19:22 remain 42:13 remedy 7:20 8:17 i 29:21 33:20 34:7. | | 41:2 i remember 23:19 remind 44:3 remote 10:8 rep 35:14 replies 10;15 reply 35:22 REPORTED 2:2) Reporter 2:22,22 44:22 1 represent 21:3 32:12 35:15 ‘ representation 26:18 representatives 4:7 43:9 represented 21:7 26:24 33:5 representing 38:11 represents 18:16 35:16 requests 14;23 required 17:3 requirement 33:8 resist 34:18,23 resolve 42:8 resolved 7:4 19:12 24:16 respect 22:14 H respectfully 7:6 14:4 respond 20:5 30:13 44:9 response 5:6 7:14 8:2 11:20 15:16,23 18:22 33:15 34:1,1 restitution 29:2 31:16,23 EFTA00180353

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

‘Case’9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 restitution/damages 32:19 restrictions 43:18 result 10:21 15:19 18:20 resulted 32:17 review 31:3 36:22 Richard 1:23 3:13 26:10 ride 40:17 right 3:24 6:24 12:25 13:3 25:8,14 34:23 37:20 41:3 42:20 43:14 44:8 rights 13:5 25:16 32:7 risk 9:6 10:6,7 18:25 38:6 40:10 41:6,11 risks 21:5 Robert 2:1,8 4:2 6:3 role 25:13 37:7 Room 2:23 Rosenfeldt 1:17 rose-colored 11:16 Rothstein 1;17 RPR-CM-RMR-F... 44:21 RPR-RMR-FCRR... 2:21 rule 39:9 42:13 rules 22:3 25:1 34:24 40:15 42:13 ruling 8:25 42:7 rulings 19:21 23:8 25:2 27:13,15 30:6 run 22:18 running 21:13 23:14 27:16 Ss same 6:10,16 8:3 20:13 27:12 31:12 32:10 35:21 38:21 satisfied 20:9 saying 7:10 8:1 17:17 19:12,16 20:6,7,8 21:14 25:5 33:9 37:10 39:5 says 8:15 13:7 17:11 18:13 35:1 38:5 40:14 41:3 scheduled 4:21 seal 5:18,23 sealed 42:14 second 20:23 27:2,5 30:24 36:25 37:4 Secondly 41:20 secret 17:1 Section 33:7 see 4:7 15:11 20:12 seek 23:25 seeking 6:7 24:3 seeks 34:22 seen 5:14,15 selected 35;15 self-fulfilling 24:23 self-incrimination 6:25 send 10:16 38:17 39:6 sends 22:23 sent 14:22,23,24 16:6 17:10 39:15 39:19 separate 5:20 17:17 serve 11:5,6 set 12:21 13:13 18:4 31:22 36:9 settle 21:8 settling 21;10 25:5 severely 21:21 sex 41:9 sexual 23:6 shape 11:4 shield 29:1 show 36:22 42:11 Sid 3:10 side 7:17,17 sideline 8:9 silent 29:23 similar 35:18 43:2 simply 11:17 since 20:20 sir 19:9 35:8 37:5 41:15 sit 8:9 sitting 42:3 situation 12:6 20:25 25:12 26:24 sole 29:21 solely 12:15 32:10 some 4:7 5:4 7:2,10 7:11,12 9:1,8,9 10:16 15:12 16:1,8 17:22 20:25 21:3 30:18 35:8 38:7 43:13 someone 10:17 19:22 24:20 26:3 34:12 34:17 37:16 39:15 something 13:19,24 14:17 15:24 20:19 26:17 28:13 34:9 37:21,23 38:4,9 39:9 43:2 Sometimes 13:4 somewhat 6:5 soon 44:15 sorry 15:14 27:19 sort 32:10 33:17 34:19 sought 31:11 sound 37:16 South 2:12 SOUTHERN 1:1 speak 12:16 19:8 speaking 26:14 32:2 Special 21:2 32:16 specific 8:2 11:1 16:24 17:13 30:25 43:25 44:4 specifically 43:7 spector 11:18 speculative 10:9 spirit 25:20 spoken 30:3 standard 11:1 standpoint 10:25 15:9 start 23:15 state 3:3 9:6 28:4 29:4 40:12,17 41:8 stated 3:25 statement 33:23 statements 43:9 States 1:1,11 2:22 4:8 5:1,5,17 6:1 9:24 10:6 13:21 14:8,17 16:7 19:14 22:10,19 29:9 39:4 44:5,22 State's 27:16 statute 17:4 18:3 20:6 24:14 28:7 29:21 36:4,7,11 41:20 statutory 6:12 24;25 25:3 34:18 37:2 stay 4:23 6:8,19,21 7:3 11:24 12:16,19 12:23 15:25 19:16 21:22 22:2,4,4,5,7 24:22 25:21 30:24 33:14,15,16,21 34:2,2 37:21,22 42:5 43:4 44:1 stayed 25:19 staying 21:18 steps 27:10 still 5:7 Street 2:2,6,9 strictly 11:15 strikes 36:12 stuck 18:14 36:10 stuff 34:19 subject 5:3 26:5,21 27:13 30:6 submit 7:6 14:4 submitted 42:15 subpoena 11:9 34:17 34:20 subpoenaes | 1:5 subpoenas 14:25 22:21 38:18 39:19 subsequently 6:9 9:16 substantial 9:6 11:22,23 13:2 18:25 41:11 sue 7:17 suffered 32:3 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 suggest 8:10,23 suggested 12:13,21 14:16 15:5,6 36:3 39:2 40:8,9 suggesting 16:7 suggestion 15;17 41:25 44:10 suing 25:10 suit 20:21 21:4 32;22 suits 26:25 summary 40:3 supporting 15:16 supposed 20:18 22:25 23:17 24:9 29:1 sure 5:7 14:11 26:2 29:16 33:22 37:25 Susan 3:17 system 31:23 s/Larry 44:20 TT T44:17,17 take 7:12 9:12 10:3,3 10:12,13,21 11:12 11:18,21,22 14:7 14:21 16:16,16 18:2 19:20 22:10 27:9,10 29:3 33:1 34:15,20 35:20 38:7,17 41:14,22 taken 7:7 9:11,21 14:9 15:5 30:20 41:10 43:5 takes 18:17 taking 9:8 14:23 19:17 22:12,20 23:15 25:20 34:8 41:5 talk 6:18 25:23 team 4:14 12:3 telephone 2:4,19,20 3:19 tell 11;13,14 42:12 telling 21:13 22:9 temporary 11:1 terminates 34:4 terms 9:3 22:7 33:20 thank 19:1,2 27:8,21 30:8,15 35:5,6 42:17 44:7,13 their 3:3,25 7:14,14 8:10,16 9:25 11:8 11:20 12:21 13:7 14:21 15:6,10 21:21 23:6 27:5 29:21 32:5,7,7 themselves 32:4 thing 25:4 27:12 28:21 31:11 39:11 things 11:3 38:15 39:22 43:10 think 6;8,14 8:15 9:4 9:22 10:19 11:22 Page 50 off 12:24,25 13:6,6 17:16 18:18,23 19:14 25:13 27:6,6 | 27:22 28:18 29:15 30:23 39:6,8 42:1 42:2,6 43:15 44:14 |. third 11:6,11 14:25 22:21 39:20 third-party 19:11 21:16 25:14 thoughts 27:2,5 threatening 44:1 three 41:14 through 3:5 6:9 11:7 | 11:16 29:14,22 31:5,24 32:6,16 till 14:2 time 6:10,11,12,15 6:19,20 13:3 17:5 21:12 31:18,19 34:4 36:3 37:2 38:21 times 17:19 18:2 today 8:4 13:11 14:3 | 14:6,6 15:5 28:17 31:9,19 35:23 36:21 43:14 44:11 44:14 today's 13;12,14 told 23:20 35:23 tools 10:25 tort 10:24 23:22 24:4,6 totally 20:5,21 23:1 41:24 TRANSCRIPT 1:10 | transcription 44;19 trauma 32:3 traumatized 21:21 tried 31:3 32:6 troubled 43:24 true 17:12 try 23:11 30:16 32:18 34:17 44:15 trying 10:11 22:3 28:25 32:9 37:8 39:20 turn 12:8 two 4:13 9:23 19:25 21:11 36:24 type 12:15 22:13 35:17 39:18 types 22:16 36:24 typical 11:2,4 22:15 23:3,4,8 U ultimately 39:9 unable 29;19 uncertainty 9:14 uncomfortable 23:11 under 5:17,17,23 7:20 8:18 9:25 EFTA00180354

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

‘Case’ 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 10;1,11,22 12:6,10 12:20 13:7,8 16:8 16:17,23 17:2,4,8 17:12,18 18:4,8,19 20:9,18,19,21 21:9 22:7 24:8,11,18,20 24:20 25:1,6 28:6 30:12 31:21 32:21 32:23 33:7,10 34;18,23 35:24 36:5,8,9 37:1,13 38:25 39:6,14 40:6 40:21,23 41:1 understand 5:7 14:15 21:25 22:3 23:24 29:25 30:14 31:7 37:8 38:20 39:25 understanding 20:10 unfair 42:2 unilateral 12:22 unilaterally 7:13 12:24 United 11,11 2:22 4:8 5:1,5,17 6:1 9:24 10:6 13:21 14:8,17 16:7 19:14 22:10,19 29:8 39:4 44:5,22 unless | 1:7 34:25 unlimited 40:21 until 37:23 urge 22:9 use 10:25 11:8 20:24 23:11 28:25 40:11 used 28:19 ULS 2:15 4:10 7:1,9 8:6 12:8,12 16:16 26:19 27:4,18,19 43:5,11,25 U,S.A 2:16 U.S.C 33:7 various 3;1 10:25 very 4:21 5:7 11:1,2 11:20 12:21 16:19 16:24 17:12,12 23:11 29:4 32:1 35:18 38:10 40:18 42:2 43:18 44:14 Via 2:4,19,20 victim 37:13 victims 20:12 21:20 28:23 31:12,16,23 32:13 33:18 35:16 39:20 41:17,18,19 41:19 iia: 2:14.49 4:10 17:10 30:10 30:15 33:24 34:14 35:2,4,6,12 39:4 44:9,12 violate 19:18 34:6 violated 5:2 14:2 39:6 violates 8:5,11 33:2 42:25 violating 9:16,19 38:17 41:6 43:13 violation 8:23 9:9 10:4,19 11:20 12:7 12:9 13:15,19,20 13:23 14:10,19 15:2 16:7 18:19 24:19 25:19,20 29:10 34;10,13,24 35:12,24 37:17 40:25 41:4 violations 17:17,18 17:24 18:1,16 19:23 40:16 43:17 43:22 voluminous 31:4 vs 1:6 3:1 5:17 W2:5 wait 8:10 18:13 42:12 waive 25:14 waiving 18:7 want 8:9,10 11:15 12:2 16:22 17:20 21:4,4,5,14 22:1,6 25:17 26:2,8,16,18 26:23 27:4 29:16 35:7 37:21 41:17 41:21 42:14,21 44:9 wanted 11:11 14:21 17:5 20:12 29:15 42:24 44:3 wants 11:14 13:3 19:2,16,20 23:4 24:24 33:16 34:2 warranted 6:22 wasn't 28:21 way 8:23 9:9 10:5,16 10:19 11:4 13:16 14:10 19:23 25:1 25:18 27:3,4 28:22 28:23 ways 30:18 wealthy 32:13 weigh 26:11 Weinberg 2:17 4:16 4:16 Weiss 2:12 well 7:10 8:20 10:22 11;:12,12,13,13 12:17 13:16 14:11 15:7 16:18 17:15 17:23 18:10,11 33:24 35:12,19,20 36:5 39:4 40:13 went 6:18,22 26:23 32:16 43:19 were 6:10 14:6 15:10 18:7 19:11 21:2 29:23 31:17,18 32:1,4,22 34:17 36:24 43:1 44:10 weren't 32:9 West 1:2,4,21 2:2,6 2:10,13 we'll 7:19,22 8:16 17:23 26:13 40:17 we're 9:8 10:2 12:10 13:14 19:10,12 20:5 27:15 28:17 39:1 43:14 44:2 we've 15:4 35:23 36:5 43:12 whatsoever 27:7 while 32:7 34:16 35:14 whole 20:12 38:11 wide 26:24 43;19 willful 8:23 12:7 willfully 9:19 Willits 1:23 3:13,14 26:10,10,14,15 27:12,19 win 29:5 withdraw 28:8,11 wonderful 28;23,24 word 24:21 worried 39:22 worry 41:11 Worth 1:24 writing 28:13 written 5:6 21:9 23:4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 40:8 102 6:8 35:19 36:1,3 40:9 41:21 103 21:5 35:19 104 35:19 105 35:20 11:10 44:16 12 1:5 9:4 12th 13:12 13 7:14 9:4 147:14 150 17:19,20 18:2 24:12 17 27:23 28:9 18 33:7 18205 1:14 19 27:23 28:9 2 23:55:176:9,16 29:14,22 20 2:18 17:25 18:2 2009 1:5 13:12 22:7:21 10:2 224 1:21 2255 16:23 17:4,17 17:18 18:8,12,14 20:2,9,19,21 23:21 23:22,23 24:8,17 24:21 25:6 31:21 32:21,23 33:7,10 36:6,23 37:13 41:2 2290 1:23 25 2:2,6 250 2:12 26 20:4 3 x19 yeah 41:3 yesterday 21:9 young 20:23 21:3,20 a $15 17:20 $150,000 32:21 $50,000 17:5 32:21 08 12:18,18 08-80119-CIV-M... 1:3 15:17 10 36:15 10th 1:23 101 2:3,7 33:5 35:13 35:17 38:23 39:3,7 3118 30 17:16,19,19 30-count 40:12 305.358.2800 2;3,7 305,523,5290 2:23 305.931.2200 1:15 305/523-5290 44:23 305/523-5639 44:23 33 6:17 9:1 33128 2:23 44:23 33130 2:3,6 33160 1:15 33301 1:18 33394 2:16 33401 1:21 2:10,13 33461 1:24 34 21:20 - 4 41:18 11:12 400 2:23 44:22 401 1:17 Page 51 obade 51 50 18:2 24:12 500 2:15 $15 2:9 561.582.7600 1:24 561.659.8300 2:13 561.832.8033 1:22 561.842.2820 2:10 6. 61:18 617.227.3700 2:19 | —___7 71:18 3:5 29:14,22 36:15 . 8 8 36:15 8N09 2:23 9 36:15 954.356.7255 2:16 954.522.3456 1:19 EFTA00180355

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Delerse

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

4 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 FRagey D0 D.C. July 18, 2008 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT sreven sa tantmone SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA oa ee 08-80804-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO:: JANE DOE, a/k/a JANE DOE #1, Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants. / NOTICE OF REMOVAL In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, and 1332(a)(1), the defendants, Jeffrey Epstein, a. and a. hereby remove this action’ from Palm Beach County Circuit Court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and respectfully state as follows: Introduction Six months ago, this plaintiff filed virtually the identical lawsuit in this Court. See Jane Doe i] v. Epstein, Case No, 08-cv-80069-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Doe v. Epstein et al., Case No. 50 2008 CA 006596 XXXX MB (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. filed Mar. 6, 2008). Lewis Teinn. W059 Gaany Avinut, Suitt 340, Cocomut Gaovt, Fuorma 33133 Tots EFTA00180357

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Dof316 redacted, is attached hereto (Exhibit A). Two days later, counsel for Jane Doe #1 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice in the First Federal Action. See Doe #/ v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9. Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe #1 refiled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two nominal defendants: | oY Mr. Epstein’s personal secretary, and Ha HG one of Jane Doe #1’s contemporaries. These defendants have nothing to do with the plaintiff's case against Mr, Epstein, except that the presence of ll as a defendant in this new case, because she is a citizen of Florida (Am. Compl. 4 4), would ostensibly prevent complete diversity.’ As discussed below, however, Hill | was named in the refiled lawsuit only to destroy diversity jurisdiction, and to prevent any application of 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k), a mandatory stay provision applicable in federal court ° Haley 2 Defendant Kellen is a citizen of New York (Am. Compl. 4 5), and is therefore a nonresident defendant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and removal. 3 Section 3509(k) of Title 18, United States Code, provides as follows: If, at any time that a cause of action for recovery of compensation for damage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action is pending which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the child is the victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal action and any mention of the civil action during the criminal proceeding is prohibited. As used in this subsection, a criminal action is pending until its final adjudication in the trial court. 3 Lewis ‘Teinn 30S9 Gaano Avemue, SuiTe 340, Coconut Grove, FLomoa 33133 EFTA00180358 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 3 of 100

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Sof3i6 Doe” lawsuits presently pending against Epstein, filed by this plaintiffs former lawyer. This case is properly removed to federal court, first, because there is complete diversity among the real parties-in-interest, second, because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and third, because this Notice complies with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Discussion A. This case is properly removable because it falls within the original jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. A state-court case is properly removable when “it could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court.” Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S, 81, 83 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal district court, and it is the same case today. Even though it was reconfigured to look like a state-court lawsuit, this action falls squarely within the bounds of the diversity-jurisdiction statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (establishing that federal district courts have original jurisdiction over cases where the amount in controversy [is more than $75,000] . . . and [when the controversy] is between citizens of different states’’). 5 Lewis ‘Teinn. 3059 Gaano Avinut, Suite 340, Coconut Grove, Fromm, 33133 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 5 of 100 EFTA00180359

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that “[w]hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement.” Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). This case meets that standard, and satisfies the first prong of diversity jurisdiction. 2. There is complete diversity among the real parties to this controversy. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S, 185, 187 (1990) (“Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require ‘complete diversity’ of citizenship.” (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267-68 (1806))). See also MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Group, LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating that “[c]omplete diversity requires that no defendant in a diversity action be a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff’), As demonstrated below, this case satisfies the statutory requirement of complete diversity. (a) Plaintiff Jane Doe is a citizen of Florida. (Am. Compl. § 1.) ° * Jane Doe may, in fact, be a citizen of Georgia, not Florida, as she pled in her Amended Complaint. See New York Post, Jul. 1, 2008 (reporting that “On his way into court [for his state-court guilty plea on June 30], Epstein was served with a copy of a lawsuit by Doe, who has since moved to another state.”); Jane Doe Depo. at 77, 112 (indicating that 7 Lewis ‘Teinn. 3059 Gaano AvENuE, SurTE 340, Cocomut Grove, Frommn 33133 Tof3t6 EFTA00180360

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 9 Sots Oct. 15, 2007) (Moreno, J.) (citing Riley v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 292 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir, 2002)); accord, e.g., Tedder v, F.M.C. Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (Sth Cir. 1979) (denying motion to remand where two resident defendants were joined for the fraudulent purpose of defeating federal jurisdiction). In this case, the plaintiff relies on her original allegations to support three causes of action against a. civil conspiracy (Am. Compl. ¥§ 20-23); Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Am. Compl. $f] 23-28); and civil RICO (Am. Compl. §{§ 29-34). These allegations, however, do not support these claims, or any other theory of liability that would allow recovery against a. Cf Parks v. The New York Times Co., 308 F.2d 474, 477 (Sth Cir. 1962) (observing that “determination of fraudulent joinder is to be based on whether there was a real intention on colorable grounds to procure a joint judgment”) (emphasis added),* (a) Nonresident defendants have a right of removal, The removal statute was enacted specifically “to protect defendants.” Legg vy. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir, 2005). Cf, e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D, La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect “the right [of removal] granted to In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. 9 Lewis ‘Teinn. 3059 Grand Avéwut, Suite 340, Coconut Gaove, Fromms 33133 of 100 EFTA00180361

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 11 of 316 action arising from an alleged sexual assault of a minor “shall be stayed until the end of all phases of [any] criminal action”) (emphasis added). In this case, there is a parallel federal criminal grand jury action pending in the Southern District of Florida, In re Grand Jury, No. FGJ 07-103(WPB) (S.D. Fla.), which arises out of the same allegations pled here. Thus, in resorting to fraudulent joinder, the plaintiff has sought to avoid any application of this otherwise controlling statute. Cf. Doe vy. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 517847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (staying civil diversity action over plaintiffs’ objections on grounds that “the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) is clear that a stay is required in a case... where a parallel criminal action is pending which arises from the same occurrence involving minor victims”) (emphasis added), Even outside the context of a mandatory federal statute, “the Supreme Court [has] admonished [that] ‘the Federal courts should not sanction devices intended to prevent a removal to a Federal court where one has that right, and should be equally vigilant to protect the right to proceed in the Federal court.’” Legg, 428 F.3d at 1325 (citing Wecker v. Nat'l Enameling & Stamping Co., 204 U.S. 176, 186 (1907)). See also id. (observing that “Congress ‘did not extend [to defendants a right of removal] with one hand, and with the other give plaintiffs a bag of tricks 1] Lewis. ‘Tein " 3059 Gran Avinut, Suite 340, Coconut Grovt, Fioaioa 33233 EFTA00180362 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 11 of 100 |

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 13 of 100 13 of 316 complaint contains four claims for relief, the first and second claims state only one cause of action”) (emphasis added). Using her original allegations and adding nothing, Jane Doe has tried to add claims against PY for civil conspiracy (Am. Compl. §{] 20-23), Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Am. Compl. §§ 24-28), and civil RICO (Compl. 4] 29-34) in order to append a nondiverse defendant to her Complaint. These claims, however, are untenable under Jane Doe’s own allegations, and therefore cannot be used to destroy diversity jurisdiction. (b) There is no possibility that the plaintiff can establish a cause of action — under Florida law. (i) The conspiracy claim against Robson must fail. As a general rule, “[a]n actionable conspiracy [under Florida law] requires an actionable underlying tort or wrong.” Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. Sth DCA 1984) (citations omitted) (emphasis added)."° '0 ‘This case is governed by the general rule. Cf, Churruca v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 353 So. 2d 547, 550 (Fla. 1977) (noting that while there is “ordinarily . . . no independent tort for conspiracy,” there is a narrow exception to this rule when “the plaintiff can show some peculiar power of coercion possessed by the conspirators by virtue of their combination”) (emphasis added). See generally Liappas v. Augoustis, 47 So. 2d 582, 583 (Fla. 1950) (observing that “instances of conspiracy which is in itself an independent tort are rare and should be added to with caution’” (quoting Fleming v. Dane, 22 N.E.2d 609, 611, (Mass. 1939))) (emphasis added). Plainly, this case involves the general rule, not the narrow exception, because only one person could have caused Jane Doe’s injuries. Cf’ Martin v, Marlin, 529 So, 2d 1174, 1179 (Fla, 3d DCA 1988) (upholding 13 3059 Gaano Avenue, Suirt 340, Coconut Grove, Fiomoa 33133 EFTA00180363

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 15 of 316 Buchanan y. Miami Herald Publ'g Co., 230 So. 2d 9, 12 (Fla. 1969) (holding that where Count I of the complaint had failed to state a cause of action for malicious prosecution, there could be no civil-conspiracy claim in Count II “based on the allegations of Count I”), Because the statute she expressly pleads as the basis for Count I, Chapter 800, Florida Statutes, provides no civil remedy, Jane Doe cannot prevail on Count I. Therefore, she cannot prevail on her claim for conspiracy (Count II) to violate Chapter 800, Florida Statutes (Count I). (ii) _The plaintiff cannot prevail against nondiverse defendant a on her claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (ITED), Even if the plaintiff, for the sake of argument, can assert an ITED claim against Jeffrey Epstein, the plaintiff still does not have a cause of action for ITED against a. First, the plaintiff cannot recover damages in connection with her own illegal conduct; and second, the plaintiff's purported ITED claim fails - as a matter of law, 1S Lewis Teinn. 3059 Gann Avenue, Suitt 340, Coconut Grovt, Fiona 33133 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 15 of 100 EFTA00180364

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 17 of 100 omitted) (emphasis added); Turner v. Anderson, 704 So. 2d 748, (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“[N]o public policy should allow appellant to recover damages as a result of engaging in criminal conduct such as occurred in this case.”). Cf Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U.S. 143, 149 (1883) (stating that “‘[n]o court will lend its aid to a [plaintiff] ” who founds [a] cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act’”) (quoting Holman vy. Johnson, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120 (K.B. 1775)); see also id. (explaining that this policy is “‘not for the sake of the defendant, but because [the courts] will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff” (quoting Holman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120)) (emphasis added); Balas vy. Ruzzo, 703 So. 2d 1076, 1082 (Fla. Sth DCA 1997) (Harris, J., concurring) (remarking in the context of an action brought against an alleged prostitution house that “the court should continue its tradition of not interceding in civil conflicts involving transactions that are either illegal or are against public policy”). Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff cannot blame someone else i | 7) for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. Cf Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolffe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own criminal acts, even though clients’ lawyers had suggested the unlawful conduct to begin with). See also Turner v. Anderson, 704 So. 2d 748, 751 (Fla. 4th 17 Lewis ‘Teinn. 3059 Gaanp Avenut, Suite 340, Coconut Gaove, Fromm 33133 17 of 316 EFTA00180365

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 19 of 316 (iii) The plaintiff cannot prevail on her claim for civil remedies for criminal practices or racketeering (“civil RICO”) pled in Count IV, A cause of action under section 772.104, Florida Statutes (“Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices”) requires a showing of direct injury. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Jane Doe can establish that the defendants engaged in a “pattern of criminal activity,” she cannot establish that she was directly injured by those activities. Section 772.104 allows someone to bring a civil RICO claim only if “he or she has been injured by reason of? any RICO violation. § 772.104, Fla. Stat. (2007). Here, the allegations in Count IV, even if they are true, do not add up to a civil RICO claim because there is no proximate cause between the purported “pattern of criminal activity” and Jane Doe’s alleged injuries, In a doomed attempt to satisfy the extremely high burden of pleading civil RICO under Florida law, the Amended Complaint lists a series of violations rooted in Florida’s prostitution statutes. (Am. Compl. § 31.) According to the Amended Complaint, the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise . . . or conspir[acy]” (Am. Compl. § 30) over an unspecified length of time “to repeatedly find and bring [Jeffrey Epstein] underage girls . . . in order for Epstein to solicit, coerce, entice, compel, or force such girls in acts of prostitution and/or lewdness” (Am. 19 Lewis Teinn. 3059 Gaawo AveNut, Suite 340, Coconut Gove, FLomma 33133 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 19 of 100 EFTA00180366

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 21 of 100 21 of 316 where petitioners alleged that they had “suffered emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, insult, indignity, loss of self-esteem, inconvenience, hurt and emotional distress” as a result of being forced repeatedly, over time, to “perform sexual acts to retain their employment”). Here, even if the Amended Complaint can be read to plead that the defendants schemed to solicit other massages from other people (see, e.g., Am. Compl. §§ 9, 11, 12, 32), those activities are not alleged in any way to have impacted Jane Doe. Cf, e.g., Palmas Y Bambu, S.A. v. EJ. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 881 So. 2d 565, 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (holding that “‘indirect injuries, that is injuries sustained not as a direct result of predicate acts . . . will not allow recovery under Florida RICO.” (quoting O'Malley v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc., 599 So, 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992))) (emphasis added). Because the Amended Complaint does not satisfy the direct-injury requirement under Florida’s RICO law, Jane Doe has failed to allege a cause of action against P| for violation of section 772.103, Florida Statutes. B. This Notice satisfies the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446. 1. This notice of removal is timely. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446, this notice of removal is timely, Only defendant Epstein has been served with process. Defendants FP 21 Lewis Tei nme 3059 Gaanp Avenue, SUE 340, Coconut Grovi, Fiorina 33133 EFTA00180367

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 23 of 100 WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein, II IAP. 2n¢ al. remove this case from Palm Beach Circuit Court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Respectfully submitted, LEWIS TEIN, P.L. 3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 Coconut G Florida 33133 Tel: Fax By: °f. : GUY A. LEWIS Fla. Bar No. 623740 Pe MICHAEL R, TEIN Fla, Bar No. 993522 ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 By: Jack A. Goldberger Fla, Bar No. 262013 Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 23 Lewis ‘Teinn. 3059 Gann Avenut, Suit 340, Coconut Grove, Forma 33233 23 of 316 EFTA00180368

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 26 of 316 Service List Theodore J, Leopold, Esq. Ricci-Leopold, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Fax: 561 697 2383 Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Douglas M. McIntosh, Esq. Jason A. McGrath, Esq. McIntosh, Sawran, Peltz & Cartaya, P.A. Centurion Tower 1601 Forum Place, Suite 1110 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Fax. 561 682-3206 Counsel for Defend 7 Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Fax. 561 828 0983 Counsel for Defendant Hitt Robert D. Critton, Esq. Michael J. Pike, Esq. Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Fax. 561 515 3148 Co-Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein 25 3059 Gran Avi wut, Summt 340, COCONUT Grove, FLORIDA 33133 Page 25 of 100 EFTA00180369

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Qggyment1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 27 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 2006 CF09454AXX STATE OF FLORIDA, -ys- JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. / i DEPOSITION OF Fr Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 j Fa aN Reported By: . Judith F. Consor, FPR Notary Public, State of Florida Consor & Associates Reporting and Transcription Me Phone - 561.682.0905 —— -— Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 27 of 316 EFTA00180370

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

nsor & Associates Reporting nud Transcriptinn, Inc Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 5S: 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 29 of 100 WITNESS: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. TEIN: NOEXHIBITS MARKED Line 22 1 2 14 2 Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 29 of 316 EFTA00180371

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 31 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting and Transcriptinn, Inc my questions, will you just please let me know? A. Yes. Q. And if at any time you're not feeling well or something like that, you'll tell us, right? A. Yes. Q. Do you feel okay today? A. Yes. Q. Not taking any alcohol or drugs or anything like that, right? A. No. Q. So you feel ready to have your deposition A. Yes. Q. wa what is your address? A. I'm currently living at my aunt's house and know it off the top of my head. Q. Where is it? A. In Jupiter. Who is your aunt? Who else is living there? Anyone else living there? No, The contempt motion that your mother filed Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Pelm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 31 of 316 EFTA00180372

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM _ ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 33 of 100 33 of 316 sor & Associates Keporting and Transcriptivn, Inc. Where is that? Palm Beach Lakes. Have you spent the night over there? No, sir. Do you know the address there? A. I do not. Q. Isn't your sister GB iennirs on living with you and a A. No. Q. | know that this court case is a criminal prosecution, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you know that it's a criminal prosecution against a man who has no criminal background. Do you know that? A. I do now. Q. You agree that court is a very serious A. Yes. Q. And you're here with your lawyer Mr. Leopold, right? A. Yes. Q. And you know that Mr. Leopold recently filed a lawsuit in federal court against Jeffrey Epstein, seeking fifty million dollars. Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180373

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM __ ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 35 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting ond Transcriminn, Inc. Page 9 MR. LEOPOLD: Lewis, we're not going to do MR. TEIN: My name is not Lewis. I'm going to finish my question. Okay? MR. LEOPOLD: Do not answer until you hear from me. BY MR. TEIN: Q. Other than conversations that you have had with Mr. Leopold -- I'm not asking about that -- are you aware that Mr. Leopold has filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking fifty million dollars from Jeffrey Epstein on your behalf? MR. LEOPOLD: Same objection. Anything that you learn through conversations between you and me, do not answer. Those are protected. If you know through any other realm of knowledge, you may answer. THE WITNESS: No. BY MR, TEIN: Q. You have no idea that Mr. Leopold filed a fifcy million-dollar lawsuit on your behalf against Jeffrey Epstein? MR. LEOPOLD: Same objection. Do not answer that question if it's through discussions that you and I had. Outside of that, Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180374

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 37 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting and Transcriptina, Inc. Page 11 objections. Check your rules. MR. LEOPOLD: Excuse me. For the record, Counsel asked me a question. I'll state the answer on the record. He asked me the question am I going to be answering that way throughout the deposition. So long as there's improper foundation and predicate asked by the attorney, I will protect my client and I make the record where appropriate. If counsel wishes to ask an appropriate worded question with the proper | foundation and predicate, I will certainly allow the client to answer the question. MR. GOLDBERGER: Why don't you just state attorney/client privilege and just be done with it? MR. LEOPOLD: I want the record to be clear. MR. TEIN: You want to waste time is what you want to do. You were supposed to be here this morning and you totally broke the deal, the agreement that you had with us if your hearing got cancelled. But let's move on and maybe you'll stop obstructing this deposition. MR. LEOPOLD: I think the record is very Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ‘37 of 316 EFTA00180375

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM wament 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 39 of 100 39 of 316 nsor & Assaciates Reporting end Transcription, Inc Page 13 an attorney, filed a fifty-million-dollar lawsuit on your behalf against Jeffrey Epstein, yes or no? MR. LEOPOLD: Same objection. MR. TEIN: We've heard the objection 10 times already. MR. LEOPOLD: Counsel, excuse me. MR. TEIN: Just say attorney/client privilege. Stop interrupting my questions. MR. LEOPOLD: I'm entitled to make an objection for the record, which I'm doing, and I'll make the same objection. And if it calls for attorney/client privilege, any conversations you and I have had, do not answer the question. And I think that it might be appropriate, for the record, to ask questions via || am :: opposed to | I think that would be more appropriate for this deposition. BY MR, TEIN: Q. Go ahead. Please answer yes or no. A. Yes. Thank you. In fact, you know that Mr. Hexman held a press conference after he filed the fifty-million-dollar lawsuit on your behalf, don't you? A. After it happened. Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180376

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 41 sor & Associates Reporting ond Transcription, Inc. Page 15 MR. LEOPOLD: We're going to leave or we're going to take a break, because his demeanor is not appropriate, There's no reason to have this kind of demeanor. If you want to have this kind of demeanor with me -- MR. TEIN: You are obstructing this deposition. MR. GOLDBERGER: Why don't you guys go outside and just talk about -- MR. LEOPOLD: She -- her job is very difficult and she's not going to be able to take us both talking at the same time. MR. GOLDBERGER: Off the record. MR. LEOPOLD: We're not going off the record, Jack. We're not, Jack. Her job is very difficult. I'm going to make the record. I don't think it is appropriate, especially in the small confines of this room, to be very aggressive with this young lady. MR. TEIN: That's not happening. Stop, stop actually -- MR. LEOPOLD: If you're going to interrupt me, we're going to cancel this deposition -~ MR. TEIN: Stop misrepresenting. THE COURT REPORTER: I need one at a time, Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 41 of 316 of 100 EFTA00180377

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM nt 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 43 of 100 nsor & Associates Reponing sud Transcription, Inc, Page 17 You were supposed to be here at nine a.m.; it's now after two. Take your break and come back. MR. LEOPOLD: Okay. If the demeanor keeps up, we will not be here beyond those five minutes. MR, TEIN: Take your break and come back. MR. LEOPOLD: Okay. So I suggest that you relax. MR. TEIN: I suggest that you take your break. MR. GOLDBERGER: Let them take that five-minute break. MR, LEOPOLD: But I would suggest that you take deep breaths. MR. TEIN: Suggest whatever you want. Go take a break. (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) BY MR. TEIN: Q. mw. agree that giving testimony today at your deposition is something very serious, don't you? Yes. And you respect the court, don't you? Yes. Let me show you Exhibit 31-001. Can you Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 43 of 16 EFTA00180378

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 45 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting ond Transcription, Inc. Page 19 Q. Did you send that message to a friend of yours on MySpace? A. Sure, yes. Q. Were you referring to this deposition? Yes. Do you find the term n-i-g-g-e-r offensive? That's not anywhere in there. What word did you use in there? MR. LEOPOLD: Where are you referring to, Counsel? There's 20 plus words in there. MR. TEIN: Don't make a speaking objection. THE WITNESS: Are you referring to ' anything -- MR. LEOPOLD: No, | | Don't -- don't -- let him ask you the question. BY MR. TEIN: Q. What question were you asking, | i MR. LEOPOLD: She doesn't ask questions. You ask the questions. What is the question pending? BY MR. TEIN: Q. wi is the last word on there in the text of your message before the closing? A. Niggaa. Q. Don't you find that term offensive? Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 45 of 316 EFTA00180379

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 47 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting and Transcriptinn, Inc Page 21 BY MR. TEIN: Q. Let me ask you, a: you in fact write your friend this message about this deposition? A. Yes. Q. So you wrote your friend that this deposition is stupid court s-h-i-t, correct? A. Yes. Q. Because you think this deposition is stupid court s-h-i-t, don't you? A. No. Q. You wrote that to your friend, didn't you? Yes. You think that court is stupid, don't you? In some cases. Q. And you think that court is bull s-h-i-t, don't you? A. No. Q. And you think this deposition is bull s-h-i-t, don't you? A. No. Q. You wrote that to your friend, didn't you? MR, LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and answered. MR. TEIN: That's not an objection. BY MR. TEIN: Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 47 of 316 EFTA00180380

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM nt1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 49 of 100 : nsor & Associates Reporting ond Transoriptinn, Inc. Page 23 Q. a7; think that giving testimony today, under oath, is bull s-h-i-t, don't you? A. No. Q. And you wrote that to your friend on MySpace last week, didn't you? MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and answered. THE WITNESS: No, I did not. BY MR. TEIN: Q. You didn't write this exhibit? A. I wrote that, but I didn't write what you Q. You wrote in this exhibit, "I got some stupid court s-h-i-t on the 20th. Bull s-h-i-t." Didn't you write that? A. Yes. Q. Referring to this deposition, didn't you? A. Referring to the court. I was later informed that it was a deposition. Q. I'm going to ask you some questions now about what happened when you went to Jeff Epstein's house three years ago. Okay? A. Uh-huh. Q. When the police interviewed you one month Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 40 of 116 EFTA00180381

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM _ ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 51 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting and Transeripcion, Inc Page 25 A. Yes. 2 Q. Before you got to Epstein's house Wi 3 never said anything to you on the telephone about sexual activity with Epstein, did she? A. No. 6 Q. And before you got to Epstein's house 7 Wi: sent you a message over the Internet about 8 sexual activity with Epstein, did she? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Did eae ever try to convince you to 11 engage in any sexual activity with Epstein? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Did , every try to convince 14 you to engage in any sexual activity with Epstein? 15 A. I don't know who | is. 16 Q. Do you have a friend a: 17 A. No. 18 Q. Okay. Before you went so Epstein's house 19 did anyone call or e-mail you to induce you to engage in 20 sexual activity with Epstein? 21 A. No. 22 Q. So you're sure that before you got to 23 Epstein's house no one tried to persuade you to engage in sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein? No. A. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 51 of 316 EFTA00180382

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM | ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 53 of 100 msor & Associates Reporting oni Transcriptinn, Inc. Page 27 MR. LEOPOLD: If you do it one more time, we're leaving. BY MR. TEIN: . -_ MR. LEOPOLD: I'm going to make the record. You cannot interrupt me when I'm making the record. Out of professional conduct, you cannot do that. I'm entitled to make the record. I made an objection, asked and answered. Your demeanor is inappropriate. You're willing and you are able and you're responsible to ask a question in a professional manner, and ask the question and once ‘ you get the answer, to either follow up on it or move on, but not continuously browbeat and ask the same question over and over because you don't like the answer. MR. TEIN: Calm down, sir. MR. LEOPOLD: Trust me, I'm very calm here. When I'm not calm, you'll know it. I'm very calm. So please continue on. But I will not allow you to continue to harass her in the demeanor that you're doing. Ask her a question and move on. MR. TEIN: Are you done? MR. LEOPOLD: Thank you. I am. Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 53 of 316 EFTA00180383 | | |

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM _ | ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 55 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting and ‘Trarscription, Inc. 55 of 116 Page 29 1 put up with it and I don't need to put up with it 2 and it's not appropriate. And I'm sure 3 Mr. Goldberger knows all this, because I know that 4 he wouldn't do this. So I will not put up with 5 it. And I think it's highly inappropriate to do 6 this with this child sitting here, the way you're 7 acting, primarily towards me, and I will not put 8 up with it. 9 MR. TEIN: Will you please stop your speech 10 so I can ask questions? 11 MR. LEOPOLD: So long as you act 12 professionally, I will do so. But if you continue 13 to do it this way, I will leave. 14 MR. TEIN: Suit yourself. 15 BY MR. TEIN: 16 Q. aa you sure that before you got to 17 Epstein's house no one tried to persuade you to engage in 18 sexual activity with Epstein for money? Asked and answered. MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. 2 MR. TEIN: Did you get her answer? THE COURT REPORTER: No, I did not. THE WITNESS: I'm sure. BY MR. TEIN: 25 Q. Let me ask you a few questions about your Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180384

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 57 of 100 nsor & Associates | f Reporting and Transcription, Inc Page 31 A. No. Q. All right. Let me ask you two final areas of questioning about this and we'll move onto something else. Okay? A. Uh-huh. Yes. I'm sorry. Q. Before you got to Epstein's did anyone | associated with Epstein ever call you on the phone and try to persuade, induce, entice or coerce you to engage : in any sexual activity? A. No. Q. Before you got to Epstein's did anybody associated with Epstein ever contact you on the Internet and try to persuade, induce, entice or coerce you to engage in any sexual activity? A. No. Q. a who told you that when you got to Jeff Epstein's house you should lie to Jeff about your age? A. I Q. Was it or was it the other girl in 4 the car who you rode over with to Epstein's house? : Q. Who was the other girl in the car with you that day? A. I honestly don't know. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 57 of 316 EFTA00180385

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 59 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting andl Transcription, Inc. Page 33 Q. When you first met Jeff he tried to find out how old you were, right? A. Not when we first introduced each other; when we get upstairs, then, yes. Q. During the massage Jeff asked you how old you were, correct? A. Yes, yes. oy n oO & WwW HO + Q. Now hadn't you already told Jeff's assistant, the one who walked you upstairs, that you went to college and had just moved down here from Ohio? A. I never spoke to the lady. Q. Do you want to rethink that answer? MR. LEOPOLD: Is that a question? BY MR. TEIN: Q. Do you want to rethink that answer? A. No. I didn't really speak with her that you want to try to refresh your memory MR. LEOPOLD: Do you have something to refresh her memory with? MR, TEIN: Do you want to stop making speaking objections? MR. LEOPOLD: No. But to refresh someone's memory, you show them a document. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Paln Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 58 of 316 EFTA00180386

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ;, ent 1 Be) d on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 61 of 100 61 of 316 nsor SOCcIaTes Reporting anil Transoriptinn, Ine Q. You can answer the question. A. Sure. Q. Is there anything that would refresh your memory that in fact you told Mr. Epstein’s assistant, the one who walked you upstairs, that you went to college and you had just moved down here from Ohio? A. I don't remember saying that, but if you -- oa NY Oo YF S&S W DH BF I don't remember saying that myself, so -~ 9 Q. That would be a lie, right? 10 A. No. I really don't remember. 11 Q. So you told Jeff that you were 18 years 12 old, correct? 13 A. Yes, 14 Q. Do you remember Detective Michelle Pagan of 15 the Police Department, Palm Beach Police Department? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you remember you spoke to her? 18 A. Yes. | 19 Q. Do you remember that you told Detective : 20 Pagan that when you lied about your age to Jeff you said | 21 it xeally fast because you didn't want to make it sound 22 like you were lying? 23 A. I don't remember the words exactly, but I 24 do remember telling her I told him I was 18. 25 Q. And do you remember telling Detective Pagan Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180387

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 63 of 100 63 of 316 nsor & Associates Reporting and Transoripsien, Ine BY MR. TEIN: Q. Let me put it again. Does it sound right to you that you told Detective Pagan that when you lied about your age to Jeffrey Epstein, you said it really fast because you didn't want to make it sound like you were lying? MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Lack of foundation, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I could have possibly said that, yes. BY MR, TEIN: Q. You didn't want Mr. Epstein to know that you were lying about your age, right? A. Correct. Q. You didn't want Mr. Epstein to know that you were not 18 yet, right? A. Correct. Q. You wanted Mr. Epstein to believe that you really were 18, right? A. Correct. Q. Do you remember when Mr. Epstein asked where you went to school? A. Yes. Q. And you told Mr. Epstein you went to Wellington, right? pr es .682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 Ph, 561 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180388

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 65 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting ond Transcription, Inc Page 39 that would do that to a witnesses or to a person that's sitting in this chair is not acting professionally. You can't ask a question like that. You can do it, but it's not proper. And > I'm sure you weren't trained that way, certainly 5 6 not ethically. 7 MR. TEIN: Will you stop? 8 MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not going to stop, 9 because the way you're asking that question is 10 improper and you know it. 11 MR. TEIN: You're losing your cool. 12 BY MR. TEIN: 13 o. ms. -- 14 MR. LEOPOLD: Trust me. I'm very calm. 15 When I lose my cool, you'll know it. 16 MR. TEIN: I do know it. 17 BY MR. TEIN: 18 Q. Ms. Ga Mr. Epstein never asked you to do anything other than massage him, correct? because he asked me to take off A. Incorrect; my bra, so that would be two things he's asked me to do. Q. Other than asking you to take your bra off, 23 Mr. Epstein never asked you to do anything with him other than massage, correct? Foundation, 25 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. = See re men er Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 65 of 316 EFTA00180389

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 67 of 100 | nsor & Associates | Reporting and Transcriptinn, Inc. Page 41 Q. You told the police twice when you spoke to Michelle Pagan that "at no time did he touch me." Didn't you say that to the police? A. Yeah. Q. And you're saying that that was not fully truthful. Is that what you're saying now? A, Correct. Q. And you're saying if you're not fully truthful, that's not a lie. Correct? A. You took that out of context like really bac. I didn't mean like that. Touching my legs and -- he never kept his hands to himself the entire time. That's what I'm trying to say. H Q. You told the police, "At no times did he touch me." You agree with that, correct? A. No, I don't agree with that, because he did touch me. Q. Did you tell the police that he did not touch you, yes or no? A. It's a possibility, but I do not remember. Q. Okay. And you did not have any type of sex with Jeff, correct? A. No. Q. And you did not have any type of oral sex with Jeff, correct? Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 67 of 316 EFTA00180390

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 nsor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc. 69 of 316 things, but it wasn't joking about it at all. Q. You joked about it, didn't you? A. No. 4 Q. You said to . if you did this 5 every weekend you'd be rich, didn't you? 6 A. No. That's what | me. 7 Q. You didn't tell that to a 8 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and 9 answered. 10 THE WITNESS: No. 11 BY MR. TEIN: 12 Q. After you left Epstein's house you took the 13 money and you went shopping with ae: the other 14 girl in the car, correct? 15 A. Incorrect. I didn't spend any of the 16 money. 17 Q. You went to Marshall's, didn't you? 18 A. I went along, yes, but I didn't -- Q. You went shopping with them at Marshall's, didn't you? 21 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. 22 THE WITNESS: I guess you could say that. 23 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Lack of predicate Mischaracterization of earlier and foundation. testimony. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 69 of 100 EFTA00180391

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM_ .- Miginent 1 Rs ed on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 71 of 100 sor Associa eS Repaning and Transcription, Inc. It was not this year, no. Was it 2007? A. I'd have to say at least two years ago or a year ago, yeah. So it would be 2007, 2006; but it was a while ago. Q. How many federal prosecutors or FBI agents came to your house? A. I'm trying to remember. I want to say four peoole came. Q. Did they give you their business cards? A. If they did, I don't remember, and they weren't toward me. Maybe my parents have them. I don't know. Did they give you their cell phone numbers? No. Did you ever speak to them on their cell phones? No, sir. Did they speak to your parents? That's something you'd have to ask my parents. Q. Do you know whether they spoke to your parent's? A. No, sir. Q. You have no idea? Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 TI of 316 EFTA00180392

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Kuinent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 73 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc. fashion, you may answer. 2 THE WITNESS: Okay. I wouldn't know. 4 BY MR. TEIN: 5 Q. You don't know? 6 A. No. 7 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Foundation, 8 Attorney/client privilege. 9 BY MR. TEIN: 10 Q. And you say you don't know who fF 11 is? 12 A. No, sir. 13 Q. Does it refresh your recollection that he's — re 15 A. No. 16 Q. That he's J boss? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Does it refresh your memory that he's the 19 ex-partner of Jeff Herman, the first lawyer who sued 20 you -- sued Mr. Epstein on your behalf for fifty million 2 dollars? , 22 A. No, sir. I don't know who he is. 23 Q. Without telling me any conversations that | 24 you've had with your lawyers, how is it that you selected 25 Mr. Herman as your lawyer from the 81,000 members of the Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 1655 Pelm Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 73 of 316 EFTA00180393

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 75 of 100 76 of 316 sor & Associates Roporting anil Transcription, Inc. Mr. Herman in the presence A. None. Q. What discussions did you have in the presence of her aunt? A. Of my aunt? MR. GOLDBERGER: It's the witness's aunt. BY MR. TEIN: Q. Oh, of your aunt. A. The only one that we've ever discussed or ever had. Q. And so you were in a conversation with Mr. Herman and your aunt? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you discussed privileged matters during that conversation? MR. LEOPOLD: Object to the form. I think you might have to educate her on that question. BY MR. TEIN: Q. You discussed the lawsuit? A. Yes. Q. Did fe you about any conversations that she had with Mr. Herman? A. As far as I'm concerned, she's never spoken or she's never had a conversation. She only opened the door and then left. She's the one who answered the door. Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180394

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D. ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 77 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting and Transoription, Inc. TT of 316 Page 51 A. No, Q. And we've learned that many of the girls, were told by the some of whom are as old as 23, government that they would get money at the end of the Does that sound familiar to you?’ criminal prosecution. A. No, sir. Q. Other than Mr. Leopold here -- I'm not asking about Mr. Herman either -- A. Uh-huh. 10 Q. -- did anyone ever discuss with you that reimbursement for your damages? you could get A. sir. No, 13 Q. Did you or any member -- 14 MR. LEOPOLD: Are you referring to a criminal matter or a civil matter? BY MR. TEIN: 17 Q. Did you or any member -- MR. LEOPOLD: Excuse me. Let me object to the form of the question. BY MMR. TEIN: Q. get a victim notification letter from anyone? Did you or any member of your family ever 23 A. I no longer live at that residence and I wouldn't know. 25 Q. So your testimony is that you have never Ph. 561,682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180395

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 79 of 316 nsor & Associa Roporting and Transcription, Inc. tee Page 53 it back at the end of the meeting? A. No. They -- yeah. No. They have it. I'm guessing. I don't have it. Ww DN Q. How much money are you hoping to get out of 5 Mr. Epstein? 6 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection to the form of the 7 question. Attorney/client privilege. 8 BY MR, TEIN: 9 Q. How much money are you hoping to get, you, 10 yourself, hoping to get out of Epstein? 11 MR. LEOPOLD: Same. Same objection, : attorney/client privilege. Don't answer the question. BY MR. TEIN: I'm not asking about what your lawyer told Q. I'm instructing her not to MR. LEOPOLD: answer the question, because any of those conversations involve her counsel. 20 MR. TEIN: Certify that. MR. LEOPOLD: Please. BY MR, TEIN: 24 Q. Now, a you lied to get out of this 25 deposition, didn't you? Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180396 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 79 of 100

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 81 of 100 sor & Associates Roporing end Vransoriptinn, Inc. BY MR, TEIN: Q. You asked your co-workers -- MR. LEOPOLD: It's vague and ambiguous. BY MR. TEIN: Q. You asked your co-workers at the Querterdeck Tavern to lie for you, didn't you? A. No. I informed my boss about what was going on and he told me that he would help in any way that he can. Q. Okay. You got your friend (to lie by switching name tags with you, correct? A. Incorrect. It was a coincidence that same night she was not wearing her name tag; she was wearing mine. But I was also not wearing -- I was wearing my name tag. Everyone switches name tags. It just so happens it was a coincidence that same night the people came with the papers. MR. TEIN: Will you put up Exhibit 18-001? MR. GOLDBERGER: And mark 18-001 for identification purposes to this deposition. MR. LEOPOLD: None of them have been marked yet. Can we mark them and put them as attachment to the depositions? Because I think you've shown three photos now. And this is the only one that Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Paim Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 81 of 316 EFTA00180397

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 83 of 100 83 of 316 nsor & Associates Reporting ani Transcription, Inc. Page 57 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. a: friend, who you say the day 3 that the process servers went to serve you with a 4 subpoena for this deposition, just happened -- just by 5 coincidence, was wearing your name tag? 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 Q. And just by coincidence, you were wearing 8 her name tag, correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Your testimony under oath is that's just a 11 coincidence, right? 12 A. Total honesty. 13 Q. It just happens to be the day that you were 14 going to be served with a subpoena, correct? 15 A. That wasn't the first day that -- 16 MR, LEOPOLD: ap answer the 17 question. It calls for a yes or no. 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 BY MR. TEIN: 20 Q. You said that wasn't the first day you were 21 going to be -- you thought you were being served with a 22 subpoena, correct? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. You knew before the day that you switched name tags with am: the process servers were Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180398

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 85 of 100 | ' nsor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc. MR. LEOPOLD: I'll certify it. tines already. The fact that Counsel doesn't like the that's a different query. answer, MR. TEIN: Stop making speaking objections. MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not. I'm not going to put up with it, because it's in appropriate, Jack, | 2 bee nsec eeeeeeees++CERTIFIED QUESTION, «ss sseereeeercees 3 She's answered that question. She's explained it five | and you know it. TI will not allow Counsel to | | } | | 1 berate a witness, whether it's in a criminal case f 11 or a civil case, whether my client or -- 12 MR. TEIN: Calm down. 13 =: MR. LEOPOLD: Excuse me. 14 No, I'm not going to allow it. That is not 15 proper. 16 MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. 17 MR. LEOPOLD: If he wants to say that she's 18 lying after asking it five times and her 19 explaining in great detail, he can do that. But i 2 I'm not going to allow her to answer, nor be 21 harassed by him. It's improper. 22 MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. But your response 23 that Counsel doesn't like the question -- or doesn't like the answer -- just let me finish. 25 MR, LEOPOLD: Absolutely. I wasn't going Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 85 of 316 EFTA00180399

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv- | cv-80804-KAM ument1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 87 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting and Transoription, Inc. - Page 61 | MR. TEIN: Ted, I'm sitting right across the table from you. | | 1 MR. LEOPOLD: This is really big stuff that 2 you're going through. But that's fine; just ask 3 your question and move on. But do it one time. 4 If you don't understand it, I'll let you follow 5 up, but I'm not going to allow you to ask the same 6 question time and again and then call her a liar. 7 Just ask the question, get the answer and move to 8 the next subject matter. | | | 11 MR. LEOPOLD: Yes, sir. 12 MR, TEIN: Please be quiet. Don't yell. _ 13 MR, LEOPOLD: I will not be quiet. 14 MR. TEIN: Stop yelling. MR. LEOPOLD: Lewis, when I'm yelling you'll know it. I will not -- 17 MR, TEIN: My name is not Lewis. MR. LEOPOLD: I thought your first name was 19 Lewis, Mr. Tein. 20 MR. TEIN: You watched me for three days at 21 the evidentiary hearing where you sat in the back 22 of the courtroom. You should know who I am. MR. LEOPOLD: Well, that's the impression you must have made in the courtroom. 25 I will not be quiet. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 87 of 316 EFTA00180400

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 nsor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc. 89 of 316 Page 63 1 Q. Where were you when a: this someone that you were not at the Quarterdeck Tavern? 2 3 A. Eating nachos. 4 Q At the Quarterdeck Tavern? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q What did you do so that GP vo lie to 7 the process servers for you? 8 A. Nothing. 9 Q. You just got him to lie for you, didn't 10 you? 11 A. No. I had no influence on him saying I 12 wasn't there. 13 Q. He took that upon himself? 14 Isn't it true that Mr. Epstein's process 15 servers had to ask the police to get you out of the 16 restaurant so that they could serve you? 17 MR, LEOPOLD: Objection. Lack of 18 foundation, predicate. BY MR. TEIN: Q. You can answer the question. MR. LEOPOLD: If you know. Don't guess. THE WITNESS: No. Can you repeat the question? MR. TEIN: Don't coach. MR. LEOPOLD: Don't guess. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180401 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 89 of 100

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dogument1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 91 of 100 sor & Associates ‘ Reporting ond Transcription, Inc, Page 65 1 Q. When did you delete your MySpace page? 2 A. A couple days ago. 3 Q. Who told you to take your MySpace page down 4 a couple of days ago? 5 A. Nobody. I'm sick and tired of MySpace. 6 Q. You all of a sudden got sick and tired of 7 MySpace and just a few days before this deposition you 8 decided to delete your MySpace page, correct? Correct. A. Q. Is that your testimony under oath? Yes. A. 12 Q. Did you take your MySpace page down because you thought the government might subpoena it? A. Incorrect. Q. Hadn't your MySpace page been up for over three months before you took it down? A. Correct. But I also had made tons of MySpaces over the last years. I just get tired of them and delete them because -- drama -- and make new ones. 20 Q. We're going to talk about that. So you deleted your MySpace page after you were already under subpoena for this deposition, correct? Correct. A. 24 Q. What about the MySpace page didn't you want ‘ us to see EP Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 91 of 316 EFTA00180402

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 93 of 100 sor & Associates Roporting and Transcription. Inc. Page 67 1 Q. And where is the one body piercing? 2 A Belly. 3 When did you get that? For my birthday, with my stepmother and my father. Q. And when was that? A. When I was 14. Okay. So you had that body piercing when Q. you met Epstein, correct? 10 A. It might have been, or maybe that -- yeah, either my 14th birthday or my 15th. I honestly don't remember. 13 Q. Now you've lied about your age to get into bars by using driver's licenses that aren't yours, correct? Incorrect. A. 17 Q. Are you swearing under oath that you've never done that? 19 A. Yes, I swear under oath. 20 Q. And you've lied about your age to buy beer, correct? A. Incorrect. 2 Q. You're swearing under oath that you've never lied to stores about your age? A. I've never lied to a store about my age or Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Paim Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 93 of 316 EFTA00180403

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 95 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting ani Transcription, Inc. Page 69 Q. Now you can explain your answer. A. I know that I have seen all of these and I know that this one is mine. Can you go down? 5 MR. LEOPOLD: Just for the record, you're 6 pointing to the photo. 7 THE WITNESS: I'm pointing to -- 8 BY MR, TEIN: 9 Q. You're pointing to the one where it says 10 your age is 18? ii A. Correct, 12 Q. That's yours, right? 13 A. Correct. That's mine from a couple years 14 ago that I have not been on, because I don't use that. 15 Please keep going down, please. And I think that's it, 16 because there's no one -- just that one is mine. 17 Q. So the one you pointed to where it says 18 your age is 18, that's yours, correct? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. And when you wrote 18 as your age on your 21 MySpace page, that was a lie, wasn't it? A. Correct. 23 Q. Did you lie about your MySpace page back then because you couldn't post on MySpace unless you were Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 95 of 316 EFTA00180404

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 97 of 100 oy D Ve WY DY -— oO w 97 of 316 sor & Associates * Roparting and Transcription, Inc, Page 71 THE WITNESS: I don't know which MySpace you're talking about. BIN: Q. The MySpace page that you're just pointing to, where it says you were 18, A. Yes. Q. And you were lying about your age, right? A. Uh-huh. Q. Why did you finally post your true age on your MySpace profile -- A. Uh -- Q. -- four days before you were scheduled to testify before the Grand Jury? A. I honestly don't know which MySpace, because I've had like a bazillion MySpaces, and in that year, I had two, that one and another one, and that one's been deleted. So I don't know which one you're referring to. Q. You remember that you changed your age on your MySpace page from 18 to your true age just four days before you went and testified in the Grand Jury? A. No. You don't remember that. No. Do you remember Detective Recarey? Did you 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180405

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 99 of 100 sor & Associates Roporing and Transctipting, Inc. 99 of 316 Page 73 1 THE WITNESS: No. I'm pretty sure my dad drove me, because he was there with me. BY MR. TEIN: Q. Did any detective tell you to change your age on your MySpace page, to put your true age? A. No, sir. Q. Now you also lied on your MySpace page about your income, didn't you? A. Yes. 10 Q. And you lied, saying that you made a guerter million dollars a year and higher, correct? 12 A. As a joke, yes. 13 Q. That was a lie, wasn't it? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And you also lied on your MySpace page, 16 saying that you were married, didn't you? 17 A. Possibly. And that might have been an 18 error on my part. 19 Q. Now you also lie to the police, don't you? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Well, you lied to the police in your 22 tape-recorded statement that you gave to Detective 23 Michelle Pagan three years ago, didn't you? A To my knowledge, no, I did not. 24 . | 25 Q. Well, you lied to the police when you Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180406

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

\ Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 FREQoyI oDw0_ D.C. July 18, 2008 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT sveven sa amimone SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA roe 08-80804-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: JANE DOE, a/k/a JANE DOE #1, Plaintiff, Vs, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants. / NOTICE OF REMOVAL In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, and 1332(a)(1), the defendants, Jeffrey Epstein, a. and a. hereby remove this action’ from Palm Beach County Circuit Court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and respectfully state as follows: Introduction Six months ago, this plaintiff filed virtually the identical lawsuit in this Court. See Jane Doe #/ v. Epstein, Case No, 08-cv-80069-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed ' Doe vy. Epstein et al,, Case No. 50 2008 CA 006596 XXXX MB (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. filed Mar. 6, 2008). Lewis Teinn. 3059 Gano Avenut, Sume 340, Coconut Grove, Fuommpa 33133 1of 316 EFTA00180407

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 2 of 100 Jan, 24, 2008) (the “First Federal Action”). The First Federal Action named Jeffrey Epstein as the sole tortfeasor, made the identical operative allegations as the instant Amended Complaint, and demanded damages of $50 million. (The amount of the demand against Epstein is evidently the product of recent reports in the press that Epstein is wealthy.) The First Federal Action was quickly followed by a series of substantially identical “Jane Doe” lawsuits, all filed by the same attorney in a three-month span. Compare Jane Doe #1 y. Epstein, Case No. 08-cv-80069-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 24, 2008), with Jane Doe #2 v. Epstein, No. 08-CV-80119-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Feb. 6, 2008) (asserting identical causes of action based on the same operative allegations), Jane Doe #3 v. Epstein, No. 08-CV-80232-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Mar. 5, 2008) (same), Jane Doe #4 I Epstein, No. 08-CV-80380-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Apr. 14, 2008) (same), and Jane Doe #5 v, Epstein, No. 08-80381-CV-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Apr. 14. 2008) (same). On February 20, amid these filings, Jane Doe #1 was deposed in State of Florida vy. Jeffrey Epstein, 502006CF009454AXXXMB (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct., filed Jul. 19, 2006), a parallel state-court criminal action. During that deposition, she made numerous admissions that completely undermined the allegations against Epstein that she had pled in her complaint. A copy of her deposition, with names 2 Lewis Teinn. 3059 Grano Avenut, Suntt 340, Coconut Grove, Fuomipa 33133 2o0f36 EFTA00180408

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 3 of 100 redacted, is attached hereto (Exhibit A). Two days later, counsel for Jane Doe #1 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice in the First Federal Action. See Doe #1 y. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9, Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe #1 refiled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two nominal defendants: win Mr. Epstein’s personal secretary, and Hu ma one of Jane Doe #1’s contemporaries, These defendants have nothing to do with the plaintiff's case against Mr. Epstein, except that the presence of qHi my as a defendant in this new case, because she is a citizen of Florida (Am. Compl. § 4), would ostensibly prevent complete diversity.’ As discussed below, however, Hill Gl was named in the refiled lawsuit only to destroy diversity jurisdiction, and to prevent any application of 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k), a mandatory stay provision applicable in federal court 3 Haley 2 Defendant Kellen is a citizen of New York (Am. Compl. § 5), and is therefore a nonresident defendant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and removal. > Section 3509(k) of Title 18, United States Code, provides as follows: If, at any time that a cause of action for recovery of compensation for damage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action is pending which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the child is the victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal action and any mention of the civil action during the criminal proceeding is prohibited. As used in this subsection, a criminal action is pending until its final adjudication in the trial court. 3 Lewis ‘Teinn. 3059 Grano Aviwut, Surt 340, CocomuT Grove, FLomioa 33133 Jots6 EFTA00180409

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

4of 316 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Robson, besides having nothing to do with the substantive allegations of the plaintiff's $50,000,000 case, is a community-college student with no assets whatever, Even if this case purports to identify a new (and strategically nondiverse) tortfeasor, the refiled lawsuit is still directed against only one defendant—Jeffrey Epstein. Then and now, the operative allegations are the same: Jane Doe alleges that Jeffrey Epstein assaulted her “in violation of Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes.’ (Am. Compl. § 18.) To sharpen her lawsuit, the plaintiff says she is seeking damages in connection with a “conspiracy” (Am. Compl. {[ 22), a “plan” (Am, Compl. 4 32), a “scheme” (Am, Compl. § 32), and an “enterprise” (Am. Compl. § 32). These theories of liability, however, cannot be supported by the allegations in the Amended Complaint. Even if everything in the Amended Complaint were true, recovery against a. under any formulation, is impossible under Florida law. Focusing on the real parties to this controversy, the instant case could have (once again) been brought here in federal court—just like the four other “Jane 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (emphasis added). * Chapter 800, Florida Statutes, is entitled, “Lewdness; Indecent Exposure.” 4 Lewis Teinn. 3059 Gaano Avenut, Suite 340, Cocomyt Gaove, FLomina 33133 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 4 of 100 EFTA00180410

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Sof 116 Doe” lawsuits presently pending against Epstein, filed by this plaintiffs former lawyer. This case is properly removed to federal court, first, because there is complete diversity among the real parties-in-interest, second, because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and third, because this Notice complies with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Discussion A. This case is properly removable because it falls within the original jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. A state-court case is properly removable when “it could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court.” Lincoln Prop. Co, v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal district court, and it is the same case today. Even though it was reconfigured to look like a state-court lawsuit, this action falls squarely within the bounds of the diversity-jurisdiction statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (establishing that federal district courts have original jurisdiction over cases where the amount in controversy [is more than $75,000] . . . and [when the controversy] is between citizens of different states”), 5 Lewis ‘Teinn. 3059 Gaano Avinue, Suite 340, Coconut Gaove, Fromon 33133 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 5 of 100 EFTA00180411

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 6 of 100 1. The amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000. This case is a duplicate of the First Federal Lawsuit. In that case, Jane Doe pled “damages in excess of $50 million.” See Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-80069-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 24, 2008) (Compl. 4 6). That allegation is now deleted and the Amended Complaint substitutes a generic prayer for relief. It is clear, however, that Jane Doe stil! seeks more than $75,000 in damages. This case, precisely like the First Federal Action, seeks damages in connection with an alleged assault. (Am. Compl. §§ 16-19.) The Amended Complaint alleges that Jane Doe “has suffered and will continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological, and emotional damages.” (Am. Compl. § 19.) These are the identical injuries Jane Doe asserted in the First Federal Action, and are no less serious simply because pled under a state-court caption. Cf, e.g., Woods v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 523 F. Supp. 2d 812, 820 (N.D. IIL. 2007) (determining, in the context of diversity jurisdiction, that the $75,000 threshold had been satisfied, and “clearly {[surpassed],” based on “the nature of the injuries alleged” in the complaint). * The Complaint seeks damages for “[more than]... $15,000.” (Am. Compl. 4 6.) This boilerplate is routinely used in Florida pleading practice to trigger application of section 26.012, Florida Statutes, the statute that establishes the jurisdictional amount required for filing in Florida’s Circuit Court (as opposed to County Court). 6 Lewis ‘Teinn. 3059 Gran Avenut, Suitt 340, Cocomut Gaove, Fuon@s 33133 6 of3ié EFTA00180412

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that “[w]hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in | controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement.” Williams v. Best Buy Co., | Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). This case meets that standard, and | satisfies the first prong of diversity jurisdiction. | 2. There is complete diversity among the real parties to this controversy. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity. Carden v, Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S, 185, 187 (1990) (“Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require ‘complete diversity’ of citizenship.” (citing Strawbridge v, Curtiss, 7 U.S, (3 Cranch) 267, 267-68 (1806))). See also MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Group, LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating that “[c]omplete diversity requires that no defendant in a diversity action be a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff’). As demonstrated below, this case satisfies the statutory requirement of complete diversity. (a) Plaintiff Jane Doe is a citizen of Florida. (Am. Compl. § 1.) § * Jane Doe may, in fact, be a citizen of Georgia, not Florida, as she pled in her Amended Complaint. See New York Post, Jul. 1, 2008 (reporting that “On his way into court [for his state-court guilty plea on June 30}, Epstein was served with a copy of a lawsuit by Doe, who has since moved to another state.”); Jane Doe Depo, at 77, 112 (indicating that 7 Lewis Teinn. 3059 Gaanp Avenue, Suite 340, Coconut Grove, Fromoa 33133 Tof3t6 EFTA00180413

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 8 of 100 8 of 316 (b) Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen of the U.S. Virgin Islands,’ (c) Defendant is a citizen of New York. (Am. Compl. § 5.) 3. Defendan ii was fraudulently joined to defeat diversity. “A non-diverse defendant who is fraudulently joined does not defeat diversity because his citizenship is excluded from the diversity calculus.” Shenkar v. Money Warehouse, Inc., No. 07-20634-CIV, 2007 WL 3023531, at *1 (S.D. Fla. her twin sister lives with her mother in Georgia); Affidavit HIE at 4 (stating, “I am the mother and natural guardian for Jane Doe #1” with jurat executed in Georgia before a Georgia notary), DE 4-2, Jane Doe No. 1 vy. Epstein, Case No. 08- 80069-Civ-Marra (1/29/08); Intervenor’s Complaint, at § 2 (filed by “Jane Doe’s Mother” and stating that “Jane Doe's Mother is a citizen and resident of the State of Georgia.”), DE 5-2, Jane Doe No. ! v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80069-Civ-Marra (1/29/08); Petition for Removal of Disability of Non-Age, at § 1, 2, 7 (filed “on behalf of S.D.G.,” alleging that “The mother is rr reer and her address is .... Ga.,” and stating that “S.D.G. is also the unnamed party in a lawsuit filed by her father on her behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 08-80069, which was filed without the consent of the mother”), Jn re Sandberg v. Gonzalez, Case No. 50 2008 DR 001141 (Palm Beach Co. Family Ct.) (1/31/08). If this turns out to be the case, there is complete diversity, regardless Of MM citizenship. Although the Eleventh Circuit has recently indicated that a district court may not conduct jurisdictional discovery under such circumstances, another division of this Court has since allowed it. Compare Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1215-16, 1221 (11th Cir, 2007) (holding that jurisdictional discovery to determine citizenship upon removal is inappropriate), with Calixto v. BASF Constr. Chemicals, LLC, slip op., Case No. 07-60077-CIV-ZLOCH, 2008 WL 1840717, *1 (S.D, Fla. Apr. 22, 2008) (ordering that parties “shall engage in jurisdictional discovery for the Court to determine the citizenship of BASF and whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action”). ? The Amended Complaint erroneously states that Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen of New York. 8 Lewis ‘Teinn. 3059 Gaano Avewut, Sunt 340, Coconut Grove, Fuonioa 33133 EFTA00180414

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 9 of 100 Sofse Oct. 15, 2007) (Moreno, J.) (citing Riley v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc,, 292 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir, 2002)); accord, e.g., Tedder v. F.M.C. Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (Sth Cir. 1979) (denying motion to remand where two resident defendants were joined for the fraudulent purpose of defeating federal jurisdiction). In this case, the plaintiff relies on her original allegations to support three causes of action against a. civil conspiracy (Am. Compl. §§ 20-23); Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Am, Compl. § 23-28); and civil RICO (Am. Compl. §] 29-34). These allegations, however, do not support these claims, or any other theory of liability that would allow recovery against | OY Cf Parks v. The New York Times Co., 308 F.2d 474, 477 (Sth Cir. 1962) (observing that “determination of fraudulent joinder is to be based on whether there was a real intention on colorable grounds to procure a joint judgment”) (emphasis added).* (a) Nonresident defendants have a right of removal, The removal statute was enacted specifically “to protect defendants.” Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf, e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect “the right [of removal] granted to In Bonner v, City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. 9 Lewis ‘Teinn. 3059 Gaano Avenut, Sure 340, Coconut Grove, Fiorina 33133 EFTA00180415

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 10 of 316 [defendants] by . . . Congress”). In this case, by reconstituting her original federal lawsuit and refiling it in state Court, the plaintiff has clearly sought to avoid the strictures of the mandatory stay of this case that federal law requires under 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k).” In federal court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k), this action must be automatically stayed pending final disposition of an ongoing parallel criminal action against Mr. Epstein. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (providing that a parallel civil 9 By filing in state court, the plaintiff's attorney has also evidently sought to avoid the clear command of our local rules forbidding public comment about the merits of a pending lawsuit. Compare S.D. Fla. Local Rule 77.2(7) (“A lawyer or law firm associated with a civil action shall not during its investigation or litigation make or participate in making an extrajudicial statement, other than a quotation from or reference to public records, which a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if there is a reasonable likelihood that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial and which relates to (a) Evidence regarding the occurrence or transaction involved. (b) The character... of a party. ... (d) The lawyer’s opinion as to the merits of the claims . . . .”), with Ricci~Leopold Home Page, http:// www.riccilaw.com (click on “Breaking News,” then access the hyperlink entitled, 03/13/08 - Consumer Justice Attorney Ted Leopold Files Case to aid Jane Doe in seeking Justice against sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. ) (describing character of party defendant Epstein as a “sexual predator” (a term defined by Florida criminal Statutes) and quoting the plaintiffs attorney “Ted Leopold, managing partner” as characterizing Epstein as “an extremely powerful and wealthy man,” with “vast resources,” who acted “in the vilest way” at his “lavish mansion” with “lurid fantasies” and inflicting “untold damage,” and opining that he should “be held accountable;” also quoting the plaintiffs attorney as opining that “[t]his case is both about justice and making sure that a wealthy and powerful man knows that he is not above the law;” also quoting the plaintiff's attorney’s view of the evidence that plaintiff “continues to endure emotional trauma daily”) (Web site last visited July 17, 2008). 10 3059 Gaano Avinut, SutTE 340, Coconut Grove, Fuomina 33133 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 10 of 100 EFTA00180416

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 11 11 of 316 action arising from an alleged sexual assault of a minor “shall be stayed until the end of all phases of [any] criminal action”) (emphasis added). In this case, there is a parallel federal criminal grand jury action pending in the Southern District of Florida, Jn re Grand Jury, No. FGJ 07-103(WPB) (S.D. Fla.), which arises out of the same allegations pled here. Thus, in resorting to fraudulent joinder, the plaintiff has sought to avoid any application of this otherwise controlling statute. Cf. Doe v. Francis, No, 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 517847, at *1—2 (N.D. Fla, Feb. 10, 2005) (staying civil diversity action over plaintiffs’ objections on grounds that “the language of 18 U.S.C, § 3509(k) is clear that a stay is required in a case ... where a parallel criminal action is pending which arises from the same occurrence involving minor victims”) (emphasis added). Even outside the context of a mandatory federal statute, “the Supreme Court [has] admonished [that] ‘the Federal courts should not sanction devices intended to prevent a removal to a Federal court where one has that right, and should be equally vigilant to protect the right to proceed in the Federal court.’”” Legg, 428 F.3d at 1325 (citing Wecker v. Nat'l Enameling & Stamping Co., 204 U.S. 176, 186 (1907)). See also id. (observing that “Congress ‘did not extend [to defendants a right of removal] with one hand, and with the other give plaintiffs a bag of tricks HM 3059 Grano Avewut, Sumt 340, Coconut Grove, Farina 33133 of 100 EFTA00180417

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 12 of 116 to overcome it’” (quoting McKinney v. Bd. of Trustees of Maryland Cmty. Coll., 955 F.2d 924, 928 (4th Cir. 1992))). To protect a nonresident defendant’s right of removal, a federal court will “determine the matter of jurisdiction” by examining “the true situation both as to parties and causes of action.” Bernblum v. Travelers’ Inc. Co., 9 F. Supp. 34, 35 (W.D. Mo. 1934) (emphasis added). See also id. (observing that “[t]he federal courts will . . . strike out the fiction injected into a case by a party to prevent removal”). In accordance with these principles, a plaintiff cannot destroy diversity jurisdiction simply by conjuring up a nondiverse defendant; there must be at least some “possibility that the state law might impose liability on [the nondiverse] defendant under the circumstances alleged in the complaint.” Florence v. Crescent Res., LLC, 484 F.3d 1293, 1299 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). See also, Holloway v. Morrow, No. 07-0839-WS-M, 2008 WL 401305, at *5 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 11, 2008) (emphasizing that “‘[t]he potential for legal liability must be reasonable, not merely theoretical” (quoting Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 n.5 (11th Cir. 2005))) (emphasis added). In this case, the plaintiffs have tried to whip Jane Doe's original, one- defendant complaint into a froth that looks non-federal. Cf Owens v. Swan, 962 F. Supp. 1436, 1439 (D. Utah 1997) (noting that “although plaintiffs’ amended 12 3059 Grawo Avemut, Surtt 340, Coconut Grove, Fiompa 33133 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 12 of 100 EFTA00180418

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 13 13 of 316 complaint contains four claims for relief, the first and second claims state only one cause of action”) (emphasis added), Using her original allegations and adding nothing, Jane Doe has tried to add claims against fF for civil conspiracy (Am. Compl. §§ 20-23), Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Am. Compl. §§] 24-28), and civil RICO (Compl. §] 29-34) in order to append a nondiverse defendant to her Complaint. These claims, however, are untenable under Jane Doe’s own allegations, and therefore cannot be used to destroy diversity jurisdiction. (b) There is no possibility that the plaintiff can establish a cause of action — | under Florida law. (i) The conspiracy claim against Robson must fail. As a general rule, “[a]n actionable conspiracy [under Florida law] requires an actionable underlying tort or wrong.” Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla, Sth DCA 1984) (citations omitted) (emphasis added),"° '0 This case is governed by the general rule. Cf. Churruca v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 353 So. 2d 547, 550 (Fla. 1977) (noting that while there is “ordinarily . . . no independent tort for conspiracy,” there is a narrow exception to this rule when “the plaintiff can show some peculiar power of coercion possessed by the conspirators by virtue of their combination”) (emphasis added). See generally Liappas v. Augoustis, 47 So. 2d 582, 583 (Fla. 1950) (observing that “instances of conspiracy which is in itself an independent tort are rare and should be added to with caution’” (quoting Fleming y. Dane, 22 N.E.2d 609, 611, (Mass. 1939))) (emphasis added). Plainly, this case involves the general rule, not the narrow exception, because only one person could have caused Jane Doe’s injuries. Cf Martin v. Marlin, 529 So, 2d 1174, 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (upholding 13 Lewis ‘Veinn, 3059 Gaawo Avemut, Suit 340, Coconut Gaove, Fromoa 33133 of 100 EFTA00180419

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 14 of 100 Here, Jane Doe cannot assert a cause of action for “violation of Chapter 800, Florida Statutes” (Am. Compl. § 18) because there is no private right of action under that Chapter. See generally Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So. 2d 360, 374 (Fla. 2005) (observing that “not every statutory violation carries a civil remedy” (citing Villazon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. 2003))). See also, e.g., Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Ferre, 636 F. Supp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985) (King, C.J.) (holding that violation of Florida’s criminal extortion statute does not give rise to a civil cause of action for damages); Mantooth v. Richards, 557 So. 2d 646, 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff's claim for parental kidnapping where “the mentioned statutes concern only criminal violations and do not afford a civil remedy’) (citation omitted) (emphasis added); Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. Sth DCA 1984) (holding that “[a]n act which does not constitute a basis for a cause of action against one person cannot be made the basis for a civil action for conspiracy”). In this case, Jane Doe’s claim under Count II (civil conspiracy) fails because it derives exclusively from Count I (violation of Chapter 800, Florida Statutes). Cf grant of summary judgment against claim for independent conspiracy, noting that “[w]hen the concerted acts of the defendants do not create a greater harm than if the acts were committed by one person alone, then there can be no recovery”). 14 Lewis Teinn 3059 Grano Avemut, Suite 340, Coconut Grove, FLonioa 33133 14 of 316 EFTA00180420

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 15 of 346 Buchanan v. Miami Herald Publ’g Co., 230 So. 2d 9, 12 (Fla. 1969) (holding that where Count I of the complaint had failed to state a cause of action for malicious prosecution, there could be no civil-conspiracy claim in Count II “based on the allegations of Count I”), Because the statute she expressly pleads as the basis for Count I, Chapter 800, Florida Statutes, provides no civil remedy, Jane Doe cannot prevail on Count I. Therefore, she cannot prevail on her claim for conspiracy (Count II) to violate Chapter 800, Florida Statutes (Count I). (ii) _The plaintiff cannot prevail against nondiverse defendant a on her claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED). Even if the plaintiff, for the sake of argument, can assert an IIED claim against Jeffrey Epstein, the plaintiff still does not have a cause of action for IIED against a. First, the plaintiff cannot recover damages in connection with her own illegal conduct; and second, the plaintiff's purported ITED claim fails - as a matter of law, 15 Lewis Teinn. 3059 Gaano Avewut, Surtt 240, Cocowut Gaove, Flora 33133 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 15 of 100 EFTA00180421

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 16 16 of 316 1.‘ The plaintiff seeks damages in connection with her own illegal conduct. The plaintiff concedes that she went to Jeffrey Epstein’s house “to give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation.” (Am. Compl. § 13.) The plaintiff also concedes, in the guise of an allegation, that JY “brought Jane Doe to Epstein’s mansion in Palm Beach” to help the plaintiff execute her own plan. (Am. Compl. § 13.) Yet, the plaintiffs plan was illegal: under Florida law, it is a crime “to practice massage” without a license. § 480.047, Fla. Stat. (1997). To say it another way, the plaintiff admits that she went to Mr. Epstein’s house to commit a crime, Based on these allegations, it is clear that the plaintiff seeks damages in connection with her own illegal conduct, this is enough to support a finding of fraudulent joinder. See Florence v. Crescent Resources, LLC, 484 F.3d 1293, 1298 n.3 (11th Cir. 2007) (acknowledging that “under some circumstances, application of an affirmative defense can support a finding of fraudulent joinder). This conclusion is supported by well-established principles. Under Florida law, a plaintiff cannot recover damages flowing from her own illegal conduct. See Hall v. Hall, 93 Fla. 709, 112 So. 622, 628 (1927) (referring to “the universal rule of our law that one in a court of justice cannot complain . . . of another's wrong whereof he was a partaker”) (internal quotation marks and citation 16 3059 Grann Avenut, SunTt 340, Coconut Grove, FLORIDA 33133 of 100 EFTA00180422

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 17 of 316 omitted) (emphasis added); Turner v. Anderson, 704 So. 2d 748, (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“{N]o public policy should allow appellant to recover damages as a result of engaging in criminal conduct such as occurred in this case.”). Cf Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U.S. 143, 149 (1883) (stating that “‘[n]o court will lend its aid to a [plaintiff] ” who founds [a] cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act’”) (quoting Holman vy. Johnson, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120 (K.B. 1775)); see also id. (explaining that this policy is “‘not for the sake of the defendant, but because [the courts] will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff” (quoting Holman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120)) (emphasis added); Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So. 2d 1076, 1082 (Fla. Sth DCA 1997) (Harris, J., concurring) (remarking in the context of an action brought against an alleged prostitution house that “the court should continue its tradition of not interceding in civil conflicts involving transactions that are either illegal or are against public policy”). Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff cannot blame someone else Zi | for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. Cf Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolffe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own criminal acts, even though clients’ lawyers had suggested the unlawful conduct to begin with). See also Turner v. Anderson, 704 So. 2d 748, 751 (Fla. 4th 17 Lewis Teinn. 3059 GRAND Avemut, Suite 340, Cocowut Grove, Frompa 33133 EFTA00180423 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 17 of 100

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 18 of 316 DCA 1998) (approving reasoning in Feld & Sons, holding that “no public policy should allow [a plaintiff] to recover damages as a result of engaging in criminal conduct” where the plaintiff had provided false testimony at an arbitration proceeding). 2. The plaintiffs IED claim fails as a matter of law. To state a cause of action for IIED, a complaint must allege four elements: (1) deliberate or reckless infliction of mental suffering; (2) outrageous conduct; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the distress was severe. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277, 278 (Fla. 1985). Whether conduct is outrageous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. y. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In this case, without reaching the question of “outrage,” the plaintiff has failed to show that Hh conduct - - allegedly arranging an illegal sexual massage that the plaintiff herself agreed to perform - - itself caused the plaintiff to suffer any emotional distress. Even if the alleged agreement was fraudulently induced, the plaintiff's IED claim flows from Epstein’s alleged conduct, not the joint conduct of Robson and Doe in planning the massage. 18 3059 Grano Avimut, Suet 340, Coconut Grove, Fronina 33133 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 18 of 100 EFTA00180424

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 19 of 316 (iii) The plaintiff cannot prevail on her claim for civil remedies for criminal practices or racketeering (“civil RICO”) pled in Count IV, A cause of action under section 772.104, Florida Statutes (“Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices”) requires a showing of direct injury. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Jane Doe can establish that the defendants engaged in a “pattern of criminal activity,” she cannot establish that she was directly injured by those activities. Section 772.104 allows someone to bring a civil RICO claim only if “he or she has been injured by reason of? any RICO violation. § 772.104, Fla. Stat. (2007). Here, the allegations in Count IV, even if they are true, do not add up toa civil RICO claim because there is no proximate cause between the purported “pattern of criminal activity” and Jane Doe’s alleged injuries. In a doomed attempt to satisfy the extremely high burden of pleading civil RICO under Florida law, the Amended Complaint lists a series of violations rooted in Florida’s prostitution statutes. (Am. Compl. § 31.) According to the Amended Complaint, the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise . . . or conspir[acy]” (Am. Compl. § 30) over an unspecified length of time “to repeatedly find and bring [Jeffrey Epstein] underage girls . . . in order for Epstein to solicit, coerce, entice, compel, or force such girls in acts of prostitution and/or lewdness” (Am, 19 Lewis Tei nr. 3059 Gaanp Avenut, Suit 340, Cocowut Grove, Fuonioa 33133 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 19 of 100 EFTA00180425

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 20 20 of 316 Compl. { 32). The alleged “pattern of criminal activity” comprises violations of Chapter 796, Florida Statutes—the chapter that proscribes various crimes of prostitution,"? These allegations do not tie directly into Jane Doe’s alleged psychic injuries. In contrast to a cognizable RICO claim, this action concerns only an isolated occurrence. More important, the alleged injuries in this case are pled to have resulted from an alleged sexual assault, an assault “in violation of Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes” (Am. Compl. 4 18)—not anything having to do with the facilitation of prostitution, or more succinctly, the violation of Florida’s prostitution law. Civil RICO claims are extraordinarily difficult to plead successfully. There are examples in the case law of RICO claims stemming from a prostitution enterprise, but they are vastly different from what plaintiff pleads here. They involve, for example, prostitutes who sued a house of prostitution (as an “enterprise”) for inflicting systematic and repetitive abuse on them, over time. Sce Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. Sth DCA 1997) (offering an example of a civil RICO claim against the operators of an alleged “house of prostitution,” The Amended Complaint alleges a “pattern of criminal activity” comprising the following criminal violations: §§ 796.03, 796.07(2)(f), 796.07(2)(h), 796.045, and 796.04, Fla, Stat. (Am. Compl. 4 31.) 20 3059 Grano Avenue, Suir 340, Coconut Grove, Fiomina 33133 of 100 EFTA00180426

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 21 of 100 where petitioners alleged that they had “suffered emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, insult, indignity, loss of self-esteem, inconvenience, hurt and emotional distress” as a result of being forced repeatedly, over time, to “perform sexual acts to retain their employment”), Here, even if the Amended Complaint can be read to plead that the defendants schemed to solicit other massages from other people (see, e.g, Am. Compl. 4§ 9, 11, 12, 32), those activities are not alleged in any way to have impacted Jane Doe. Cf, e.g., Palmas Y Bambu, S.A. v. EJ. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 881 So, 2d 565, 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (holding that “‘indirect injuries, that is injuries sustained not as a direct result of predicate acts . . . will not allow recovery under Florida RICO.” (quoting O'Malley v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc., 599 So. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992))) (emphasis added). Because the Amended Complaint does not satisfy the direct-injury requirement under Florida’s RICO law, Jane Doe has failed to allege a cause of action agains for violation of section 772.103, Florida Statutes. B. This Notice satisfies the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446. 1. This notice of removal is timely. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446, this notice of removal is timely. Only defendant Epstein has been served with process, Defendants ian 21 Lewis Teinn. 3059 Gnano Avewut, Suite 340, Coconut Grove, FLonioa 33133 21 of 316 EFTA00180427

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 22 of 16 have not yet been served. In a multi-defendant lawsuit, removal is timely when effected within 30 days after the last defendant is served, See Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. RX Solutions, United Health Group, Inc., No. 6:08-cv-330-Orl-31KRS, 2008 WL 1744794, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2008) (concluding that removal petition was timely where it was filed within 30 days after the last defendant was served). 2. Notice has been given, and state-court papers have been filed. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), defendants have served this Notice of Removal on July 18, 2008. All papers filed in State Court are attached to this Removal Petition. 3. There is unanimity among the defendants. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) the undersigned are authorized to represent that all of the defendants join this Petition and consent to removal. Conclusion Because this is a civil action between citizens of different states, excluding any fraudulently joined parties, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, this Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 22 Lewis Teinn. 3059 Gaano Avenue, Suite 340, Coconut Grove, Fiomoa 33133 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 22 of 100 EFTA00180428

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 23 of 100 WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein, , | and mi ll remove this case from Palm Beach Circuit Court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Respectfully submitted, LEWIS TEIN, P.L. 3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Tel: 305 442 1101 Fax: 305 442 6744 ¢ { ZT . By: . ° [- GUY A. LEWIS Fla. Bar No. 623740 Fla. Bar No. 993522 ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A, 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Tel. 561 659 8300 Fax. 561 835 8691 By: Jack A. Goldberger Fla. Bar No. 262013 Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 23 Lewis Teinn 3059 Grano Avemut, Sunt 340, Coconut Grove, Fronipa 33233 23 of 116 EFTA00180429

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 24 of 100 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document is being served this day, July 18, 2008, on counsel of record identified on the service list by U.S. Mail. UT Michael R. Tein 24 Lewis. Teinn, 3059 Grano Avenut, Sure 340, Coconut Grove, Fiowoa 33133 24 of 316 EFTA00180430

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 25 of 316 Service List Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Ricci-Leopold, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Fax: 561 697 2383 Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Douglas M. Mcintosh, Esq. Jason A, McGrath, Esq. McIntosh, Sawran, Peltz & Cartaya, P.A. Centurion Tower 1601 Forum Place, Suite 1110 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Fax. 561 682-3206 Counsel for Defendant Hill Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Fax. 561 828 0983 Counsel for Defendant HIG Robert D. Critton, Esq. Michael J. Pike, Esq. Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Fax. 561 515 3148 Co-Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein 25 Lewis Teinn. 3059 Gaano Aviat, SuiTE 340, Coconut Grove, Fionmoa 33133 Page 25 of 100 EFTA00180431

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 26 of 100 EXHIBIT A 26 of 316 EFTA00180432

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Qgigyment1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 27 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc 27 of 116 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 2006 CF09454AXX STATE OF FLORIDA, -Vs- JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. / ee DEPOSITION OF P| Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Reported By: Judith F. Consor, FPR Notary Public, State of Florida Consor & Associates Reporting and Transcription Phone - 561.682.0905 Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180433

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM 28 of 316 KEITH J. BRETT, LEGAL-EZE ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 nsor & Associates Hoporting anil ‘Transcriptinn, Inc. APPEARANCES: On behalf of the State: LANNA BELOHLAVEK, ESQ. ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561.355.7100 On behalf of the Defendant: MICHAEL R. TEIN, ESQ. KATHRYN A. MEYERS, ESQ. LEWIS TEIN, PL 3059 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 340 COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133 On behalf of the Defendant: JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS 250 AUSTRALIAN AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 1400 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 561.659.8300 ALSO PRESENT: ON BEHALF OF THE WITNESS: THEODORE J. LEOPOLD, DIRECTOR OF MULTIMEDIA DIVISION, Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 Page 28 of 100 ESQ. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180434

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

: nsor & Associates Reporting ond TVeanseripcion, Inc Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Se: 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 29 of 100 WITNESS: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. TEIN: NOEXHIBITS MAR i CERTIFIED QUESTIONS.....--eeeeeeeeeee Line 22 1 2 14 2 Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 29 of 316 EFTA00180435

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 30 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting ond Transcription, lac Page 4 1 Deposition taken before Judith F. Consor, 2 Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of 3 Florida at Large, in the above cause. | 5 Thereupon, ay 7 having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined 8 and testified as follows: 9 THE WITNESS: I do. 10 DIRECT EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. TEIN: 12 Q. Good afternoon. Please tell me your full 13 name. 15 Q. And can you please spell it. f | 18 Q. Thank you. 19 May I call you aap 20 A. Uh-huh. 21 Q. am: going to ask you a few 22 questions, several questions today. If at any time you 23 wan= to take a break, you just let me know. Okay? 24 A. Okay. If you at any time don't understand one of Q. Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Woof 316 EFTA00180436

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM lment1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 31 of 100 31 of 316 nsor & Associates Reporting ond ‘Transcription, Inc my questions, will you just please let me know? A. Yes. Q. And if at any time you're not feeling well or something like that, you'll tell us, right? A. Yes. Q. Do you feel okay today? A. Yes. Q. Not taking any alcohol or drugs or anything like that, right? A. No. Q. So you feel ready to have your deposition A. Yes. Q. wa what is your address? A. I'm currently living at my aunt's house and I don't know it off the top of my head. Q. Where is it? A. In Jupiter. Who is your aunt? Who else is living there? ay my uncle, Anyone else living there? No. The contempt motion that your mother filed Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Pelm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180437

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

} ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 32 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting and Transctinzion, Inc Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Page 6 1 against your father regarding your fifty million-dollar lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein says that you live with your aunt and uncle and have been living there; is that Ww HN correct? o A. Yes. Q. How long have you been living with your ya HD w aunt and uncle? 8 A. Since my father kicked me out. 9 Q. That was Thanksgiving of this past year? 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 Q. Okay. Didn't your firefighter boyfriend 12 a :-: an apartment for the two of you? : 13 A. No, sir. He has an apartment, but by 14 himself. 15 Q. Did he get an apartment for the two of you 16 to live in? 17 A. No, sir. | 18 Q. Are you planning to move in with him? 19 A. Maybe one day in the future. 20 Q. Do you have a plan to move in with him 21 presently? A. No, Q. Have you been to the apartment that you and 24 a discussed moving in together? 25 A. I have been to the apartment. Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 32 of 316 EFTA00180438

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM | ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 33 of 100 33 of 316 sor & Associates Reporting and Transcripting, Ine Where is that? Palm Beach Lakes. Have you spent the night over there? No, sir. Do you know the address there? A. I do not. Q. Isn't your sister (BB eranning on living with you and a A. No. Q. | Ba know that this court case is a criminal prosecution, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you know that it's a criminal prosecution against a man who has no criminal background. Do you know that? A. I do now. Q. You agree that court is a very serious matter? A. Yes. Q. And you're here with your lawyer Mr. Leopold, right? A. Yes. Q. And you know that Mr. Leopold recently filed a lawsuit in federal court against Jeffrey Epstein, seeking fifty million dollars. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180439

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 34 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc. Page 8 MR. LEOPOLD: Let me just object. a: me instruct you. Anything that you have learned through conversations between you and me are protected. So if you know any of that information outside of those discussions, you may answer. But if the only way you know it is through our discussions, do not answer that question. BY MR. TEIN: Q. F | you know that Mr. Leopold recently filed a lawsuit in federal court on your behalf against Jeffrey Epstein seeking fifty million dollars? MR. LEOPOLD: Same objection. If you know the answer to that outside of our discussions, you may answer. If it is the only way that you know the answer is through our discussions, do not answer that question. THE WITNESS: Okay. MR. LEOPOLD: Attorney/client privilege. BY MR. TEIN: Q. You can answer the question unless -- MR. LEOPOLD: Same objection. MR. TEIN: Let me finish. MR. LEOPOLD: Excuse me. We're -- MR. TEIN: No. Let me finish. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 M4 of 316 EFTA00180440

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM _ ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 35 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting and Transcripiion, Inc. Page 9 MR. LEOPOLD: Lewis, we're not going to do MR. TEIN: My name is not Lewis. I'm going to finish my question. Okay? MR. LEOPOLD: Do not answer until you hear from me. BY MR. TEIN: Q. Other than conversations that you have had with Mr. Leopold -- I'm not asking about that -~ are you aware that Mr. Leopold has filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking fifty million dollars from Jeffrey Epstein on your behalf? MR. LEOPOLD: Same objection. Anything that you learn through conversations between you and me, do not answer. Those are protected. If you know through any other realm of knowledge, you may answer. THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. TEIN: Q. You have no idea that Mr. Leopold filed a fifzy million-dollar lawsuit on your behalf against Jeffrey Epstein? MR. LEOPOLD: Same objection. Do not answer that question if it's through discussions that you and I had. Outside of that, — Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 35 of 316 EFTA00180441

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Qaogyment1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 36 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc. Page 10 1 you may answer. So do not answer that question if 2 that is the only basis by which you understand 3 that answer. 4 THE WITNESS: No. 5 BY MR. TEIN: 6 Q. You didn't know that? 7 MR. LEOPOLD: Don't answer that question. 8 Again, it's attorney/client privilege. Any 9 information you've learned through conversations 10 between you and I are protected. If you know it 11 through any other realm, you may answer. 12 MR. TEIN: Are you going to say that for 13 every question in the deposition, Mr. Leopold? 14 MR. LEOPOLD: When you ask improper 15 questions like that without the proper -- 16 MR. TEIN: You're going to stop your 17 speaking objections right now. Okay? 18 MR. LEOPOLD: Without the proper -- 19 MR. TEIN: You need to stop your speaking 20 objections. 2 Let's continue. 22 MR. LEOPOLD: Counsel, you just asked me a question and I'm going to state it on the record -- 25 MR. TEIN: You need to stop your speaking Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 36 of 316 EFTA00180442

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 37 of 100 sor & Associates Reporing wd Transcription, Inc. Page 11 objections. Check your rules. MR. LEOPOLD: Excuse me. For the record, Counsel asked me a question. I'll state the answer on the record. He asked me the question am I going to be answering that way throughout the deposition. So long as there's improper foundation and predicate asked by the attorney, I will protect my client and I make the record where appropriate. If counsel wishes to ask an appropriate worded question with the proper foundation and predicate, I will certainly allow the client to answer the question. MR. GOLDBERGER: Why don't you just state attorney/client privilege and just be done with it? MR. LEOPOLD: I want the record to be clear. MR. TEIN: You want to waste time is what you want to do. You were supposed to be here this morning and you totally broke the deal, the agreement that you had with us if your hearing got cancelled. But let's move on and maybe you'll stop obstructing this deposition. MR. LEOPOLD: I think the record is very Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 37 of 316 EFTA00180443

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9;08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 38 of 100 nsor & Associates Hoporting omit Transctiptinn, Inc Page 12 clear where we stand thus far, Is there a recording taken of this deposition? Yes. THE COURT REPORTER: Just make sure that's MR. LEOPOLD: preserved. BY MR. TEIN: 8 Q. Go to Exhibit 20-01 -- well, before you do 9 chat are you aware that a lawyer named Jeffrey 10 Herman filed a lawsuit on your behalf, yes or no? 11 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. 12 Any conversations that you and I have had 13 regarding that, if that is the only way by which 14 you understand how to answer that question, do not 15 answer. It's attorney/client privilege, as well 16 as any conversations you may have had with the 17 attorney from Miami. That is also attorney/client 18 privilege. And I'm assuming -- 19 MR. TEIN: You're actually wrong about the 20 attorney/client privilege. 21 MR. LEOPOLD: I'm assuming Counsel is not 22 asking you to divulge attorney/client -- \ MR. TEIN: Of course not. BY MR. TEIN: 25 Q. , | are you aware that Jeffrey Herman, Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 38 of 316 EFTA00180444

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 39 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc Page 13 an attorney, filed a fifty-million-dollar lawsuit on your behalf against Jeffrey Epstein, yes or no? MR. LEOPOLD: Same objection, MR. TEIN: We've heard the objection 10 times already. MR. LEOPOLD: Counsel, excuse me. MR. TEIN: Just say attorney/client privilege. Stop interrupting my questions. MR. LEOPOLD: I'm entitled to make an objection for the record, which I'm doing, and I'll make the same objection. And if it calls for attorney/client privilege, any conversations you and I have had, do not answer the question. And I think that it might be appropriate, for the record, to ask questions via | | am :: opposed to a I think that would be more appropriate for this deposition. BY MR, TEIN: Q. Go ahead. Please answer yes or no. A. Yes. Q. Thank you. In fact, you know that Hr. Bexman held a press conference after he filed the fifty-million-dollar lawsuit on your behalf, don't you? A. After it happened. Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 3901316 EFTA00180445

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM nt 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 40 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting and Transcriptinn, Inc. Page 14 1 Q. You know that he had a press conference, don't you, yes or no? A. Yes. In fact, let's go to Exhibit 20-01. Q. MR. GOLDBERGER: Look behind you. You'll see it. BY MR. TEIN: Q. Have you ever seen that picture before? A. Yes. 10 Q. Is that a picture of your father, your stepmother and Mr. Herman at the press conference regarding your lawsuit? A. Yes. 14 Q. Now you know that this is a very serious don't you? matter, Asked and answered. MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. All right. You can MR. GOLDBERGER: 19 object. You're representing a witness here, 20 Mr. Leopold. You can object on privilege grounds. You cannot make legal objections. You have no standing to do so, 23 MR. LEOPOLD: I'm going to make them and then -- MR. GOLDBERGER: We're -~ Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 40 of 316 EFTA00180446

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 41 sor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc, Page 15 MR. LEOPOLD: We're going to leave or we're going to take a break, because his demeanor is not appropriate. There's no reason to have this kind of demeanor. If you want to have this kind of demeanor with me ~- MR. TEIN: You are obstructing this deposition. MR. GOLDBERGER: Why don't you guys go outside and just talk about -- MR. LEOPOLD: She -- her job is very difficult and she's not going to be able to take us both talking at the same time. MR. GOLDBERGER: Off the record. MR. LEOPOLD: We're not going off the record, Jack. We're not, Jack. Her job is very difficult. I'm going to make the record. I don't think it is appropriate, especially in the small confines of this room, to be very aggressive with this young lady. MR. TEIN: That's not happening. Stop, stop actually -- MR. LEOPOLD: If you're going to interrupt me, we're going to cancel this deposition -- MR. TEIN: Stop misrepresenting. THE COURT REPORTER: I need one at a time, Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 41 of 316 of 100 EFTA00180447

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 42 of 100 nsor & Associates Roporting and Transcription, Inc Page 16 no matter who it is. MR. LEOPOLD: I think we're going to take a break. Perhaps you might want to talk to your co-counsel -- I don't need to talk to him. MR. TEIN: But we're going to take a MR. LEOPOLD: break. We're not taking a break unless MR. TEIN: the witness needs a break. You're obstructing this deposition, Ted. 11 MR. LEOPOLD: Come on, aa 12 You all want to continue in this demeanor -- 14 MR. TEIN: You're obstructing the deposition. Stop making speeches. We're not discussing this with you. The questions are to your client. Go take your five-minute break. Fine. We need to make sure MR. LEOPOLD: the record's clear and clean. And I want to make sure, as I've already asked you -- I know that you're one of the best in town -- that this audio -- this needs to be Okay? preserved, 24 MR. TEIN: Go take your five-minute break, 25 Mr. Leopold, now. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 42 of 316 EFTA00180448

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM nt1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 43 of 100 | nsor & Associates | Reporting oad Transcriptina, Inc. Page 17 You were supposed to be here at nine a.m.; it's now after two. Take your break and come back. MR. LEOPOLD: Okay. If the demeanor keeps up, we will not be here beyond those five minutes. MR. TEIN: Take your break and come back. MR. LEOPOLD: Okay. So I suggest that you relax. MR. TEIN: I suggest that you take your break. MR. GOLDBERGER: Let them take that five-minute break. MR. LEOPOLD: But I would suggest that you take deep breaths. MR. TEIN: Suggest whatever you want. Go take a break. (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) BY MR. TEIN: Q. | agree that giving testimony today at your deposition is something very serious, don't you? Yes. And you respect the court, don't you? Yes. Let me show you Exhibit 31-001. Can you Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 43 of 316 EFTA00180449

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM nt 1 tergd on FLSD Resist 07/21/2008 Page 44 of 100 of 6 sor SS50CIAaATEes Roporting and Transcriptinn, Inc. read that out loud, please. A. Okay. What do you want? Q. Will you read that out loud, please. A. Oh. Q. Thank you. A. Lol hah my baddd...1lol yah i got some stupid court shit on the 20th...bullshit...and damn you still have court shit with him? Like after so long wow im sorry... well yah well we will definitely havta make plans for sure..because i miss u tons times a million and no no no i love you...o and p.s. i love ur default pic niggaa. Muah xo. Q. Did you send that message last week to a friend of yours on MySpace? A. I wouldn't know. There's no dates and I've deleted that MySpace, so -- Q. We're going to talk about that in a second. Okay. Did you send that message last week -- Right. Let me finish my question, Did you send that message last week to a friend of yours on MySpace? A, I wouldn't know the date, but obviously, it's to a friend. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180450

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 45 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc, 45 of 316 Page 19 1 Q. Did you send that message to a friend of yours on MySpace? A. Sure, yes. Q. Were you referring to this deposition? Cs Yes. Do you find the term n-i-g-g-e-r offensive? That's not anywhere in there. What word did you use in there? 9 MR. LEOPOLD: Where are you referring to, 10 Counsel? There's 20 plus words in there. 11 MR. TEIN: Don't make a speaking objection. 12 THE WITNESS: Are you referring to 13 anything -- 14 MR. LEOPOLD: No, || Don't -=- don't -- let him ask you the question, BY MR. TEIN: 17 Q. What question were you asking, a: 18 MR. LEOPOLD: She doesn't ask questions. You ask the questions. What is the question pending? BY MR. TEIN: 22 Q. Zi is the last word on there in 23 the text of your message before the closing? 24 A, Niggaa. 25 Q. Don't you find that term offensive? Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180451 .

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM nt1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 46 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting ond Transcriptinn, Inc Page 20 No. Can you spell it for the MR. LEOPOLD: record, please, THE WITNESS: N-i-g-g -~- = MR. TEIN: No, no, no. You are not going to be asking questions. MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not asking questions. I'm asking for the record the word to be spelled, ost Hn Ww because we don't have a video here today. 10 MR. TEIN: These exhibits are part of the record. You -- it's not marked as an MR. LEOPOLD: Well, 13 exhibit. 14 MR. TEIN: Stop interrupting me, 15 Mr. Leopold. I have marked and identified as an 16 exhibit and you will get it. 17 MR. LEOPOLD: There has been no 18 identification of this document in the record. 19 MR. TEIN: Mr. Leopold, stop interrupting 20 this deposition. 21 MR. LEOPOLD: What is the exhibit number 22 marked for identification? 23 MR. TEIN: 31-001. 24 MR. LEOPOLD: Do we have copies? Is it on the record anywhere? Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 46 of 316 EFTA00180452

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM | ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 47 of 100 nsor & Assaciates | | | | | ’ Reporting and Transcription, Inc. | | | } | Page 21 BY MR. TEIN: Q. Let me ask you, ay :: you in fact write your friend this message about this deposition? A. Yes. Q. So you wrote your friend that this deposition is stupid court s-h-i-t, correct? A. Yes. Q. Because you think this deposition is stupid court s-h-i-t, don't you? A. No. Q. You wrote that to your friend, didn't you? Yes. You think that court is stupid, don't you? In some cases. Q. And you think that court is bull s-h-i-t, A. No. Q. And you think this deposition is bull s-h-i-t, don't you? A. No. Q. You wrote that to your friend, didn't you? MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and answered. MR. TEIN: That's not an objection. BY MR, TEIN: Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 47 of 316 | | | | | | | 4 | don't you? . EFTA00180453

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM nt 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 48 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting and ‘Transcriptina, Inc. Page 22 wrote that to your friend, didn't you? MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and N answered, for the fourth time. MR. TEIN: You are improperly objecting, Mr. Leopold. You have no grounds to object. And that's not an objection. MR. LEOPOLD: It is an objection. oY Dn wo > w MR. TEIN: Then terminate the deposition if you think it's been asked and answered. MR. LEOPOLD: Counsel, I am not precluded from just making an objection to the form of the question. As the courts well know, and if you practice here in West Palm Beach, many of the judges require you to set the objection with And I will do that. And if you specificity. don't want me to, you can make the record. But I will do that. MR. TEIN: Here's what we'll do, Ted. You 13 can -~ I will allow you to reserve an objection to form for every single one of my questions. Otherwise, all you're doing is obstructing. I won't do that. LEOPOLD: MR. 23 MR. TEIN: Of course; because you want to obstruct. 25 MR. LEOPOLD: All right. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 46 of 316 EFTA00180454

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ment 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 49 of 100 49 of 16 - sor & Associates Reporting ond Transoriptinn, Inc. Page 23 BY MR, TEIN: Q. a7. think that giving testimony today, under oath, is bull s~h-i-t, don't you? A. No. Q. And you wrote that to your friend on MySpace last week, didn't you? MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and answered. THE WITNESS: No, I did not. BY MR. TEIN: Q. You didn't write this exhibit? A. I wrote that, but I didn't write what you Q. You wrote in this exhibit, "I got some stupid court s-h-i-t on the 20th. Bull s-h-i-t." Didn't you write that? A. Yes. Q. Referring to this deposition, didn't you? A. Referring to the court. I was later informed that it was a deposition. Q. I'm going to ask you some questions now about what happened when you went to Jeff Epstein's house three years ago. Okay? A. Uh-huh. Q. When the police interviewed you one month Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 } | | EFTA00180455

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 50 of 100 sor & Associates Roponing and Transcription, inc. Page 24 after you went to Epstein's house, you swore on your mother's grave that you and Epstein did not engage in sex of any kind? A. Yes. Q. Didn't you tell that to the police? A. Yes. And I will continue. I have never had sex with him. Q. Did what happened upstairs at Jeff 9 Epstein's house take you completely by surprise, DP 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Now the civil complaint that you filed against Mr. Epstein for fifty million dollars alleged 13 thaz you were totally shocked by what happened when you got there. A. Yes. 16 Q. Were you totally shocked by what happened 17 when you got to Epstein's house? 18 A. Yes. | 19 Q. You didn't expect it at all, did you? | 20 A. No. 21 Q. You had absolutely no idea why your friend 22 a: taking you to Epstein's house, right? 23 A. I was informed it was a massage. 24 Q. All you thought that it was going to be was correct? a message, Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 50 of 316 EFTA00180456

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM _ ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 51 of 100 nsor & Associates Roparting andl Transcription, Inc Page 25 A. Yes. Q. Before you got to Epstein's house | | 3 never said anything to you on the telephone about sexual 4 activity with Epstein, did she? 5 A. No. 6 Q. And before you got to Epstein's house 7 Wi: sent you a message over the Internet about 8 sexual activity with Epstein, did she? 9 A, No. “10 Q. Did eee ever try to convince you to 11 engage in any sexual activity with Epstein? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Did FY every try to convince 14 you to engage in any sexual activity with Epstein? 15 A. I don't know who | is. 16 Q. Do you have a friend a: 17 A. No. 18 Q. Okay. Before you went so Epstein's house 19 did anyone call or e-mail you to induce you to engage in 20 sexual activity with Epstein? 21 A. No. 22 Q. So you're sure that before you got to 23 Epstein's house no one tried to persuade you to engage in sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein? A. No. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 S1 of 316 EFTA00180457

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Qjéigment1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 52 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc. Page 26 You're sure that -- let me ask the question again. You're sure that before you got to Epstein's house no one tried to persuade you to engage in 5 sexual activity with Epstein for money. Are you? 6 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and 7 answered. 8 THE WITNESS: No. And I've already 9 answered that a bazillion times. 10 BY MR. TEIN: 11 Q. He's coaching you now. So I'm going to ask 12 the question -- 4 13 MR. LEOPOLD: Counsel, I've made an 14 objection for the record. 115 MR. TEIN: Stop speaking. MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not going to stop speaking. You can't interrupt me when I'm making the record. 19 MR. TEIN: You're coaching the witness. MR. LEOPOLD: Counsel -- 21 MR. TEIN: Stop coaching the witness. , | let me ask you -- MR. LEOPOLD: If you continue to -- 25 MR. TEIN: Stop interrupting my questions. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 . 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 52 of 316 EFTA00180458

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM _ | ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 53 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting ond Transcription, Inc Page 27 MR. LEOPOLD: If you do it one more time, | we're leaving. BY MR, TEIN: md MR. LEOPOLD: I'm going to make the record. You cannot interrupt me when I'm making the record. Out of professional conduct, you cannot do that. I'm entitled to make the record. I made an objection, asked and answered. Your demeanor is inappropriate. You're willing and you are able and you're responsible to ask a question ina professional manner, and ask the question and once , you get the answer, to either follow up on it or move on, but not continuously browbeat and ask the same question over and over because you don't like the answer. MR. TEIN: Calm down, sir. MR. LEOPOLD: Trust me, I'm very calm here, When I'm not calm, you'll know it. I'm very calm. So please continue on. But I will not allow you to continue to harass her in the demeanor that you're doing. Ask her a question and move on, MR. TEIN: Are you done? MR. LEOPOLD: Thank you. I am. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 53 of 316 EFTA00180459

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM t ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 54 of 100 nsor & Associates Reparing and Transcription, Inc Page 28 1 MR. TEIN: Stop misrepresenting the record and calm down. I'm going to ask my question. Stop it. BY MR. TEIN: MR. LEOPOLD: I think the record is very oy nw MR. GOLDBERGER: Let me just clarify When you object to the form of a something. question, you're not instructing the witness not to answer the question, are you? 12 MR. LEOPOLD: No. And I'm not making that objection; only on attorney/client privilege. 14 MR. TEIN: Will you stop speaking now so I Are you done? can ask my question? Okay. I'm going to ask my question. BY MR. TEIN: 18 Q. Listen, wa -- 19 MR. LEOPOLD: Hold on. Stop. I've been doing this for 20 plus years and but I've never had an have met a lot of attorneys, experience like this where I've -- 23 MR. TEIN: Stop your speeches. 24 MR. LEOPOLD: If you continue to do this, whether it's with me or with my client, I will not Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 54 of 316 EFTA00180460

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM | ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 55 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc. Page 29 put up with it and I don't need to put up with it and it's not appropriate. And I'm sure Mr. Goldberger knows all this, because I know that he wouldn't do this. So I will not put up with > 5 it. And I think it's highly inappropriate to do 6 this with this child sitting here, the way you're 7 acting, primarily towards me, and I will not put 8 up with it. 9 MR. TEIN: Will you please stop your speech 10 so I can ask questions? 11 MR. LEOPOLD: So long as you act 12 professionally, I will do so. But if you continue 13 to do it this way, I will leave. 14 MR. TEIN: Suit yourself. 15 BY MR. TEIN: 16 Q. wa: you sure that before you got to 17 Epstein's house no one tried to persuade you to engage in 18 sexual activity with Epstein for money? Asked and answered. MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. 21 MR. TEIN: Did you get her answer? THE COURT REPORTER: No, I did not. I'm sure. THE WITNESS: BY MR. TEIN: 25 Q. Let me ask you a few questions about your Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 55 of 316 EFTA00180461

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 56 of 100 nsor & Associates Reponing ond ‘Transcription, Inc. contact with Jeffrey Epstein. Okay? (Witness nods head up and down.) Jeff never e-mailed you, did he? No, Jeff never text messaged you, did he? No. Jeff never chatted in a chat room with you, did he? A. No. Q. Before you got to Epstein's house you had never spoken to Jeff, had you? A. No. : Q. And before you got to Epstein's house you had never met Jeff? A. Correct. Q. Before you got to Epstein's house you had never told Jeff that you were under 18, right? A. No. Q. Before you got to Epstein's house had you ever told Jeffrey that you were under 18? A. No. I never spoke to the man before that. Q. And you only went to Jeff Epstein's house thet one time three years ago, correct? A. Yes. Q. You never went there again, correct? Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 56 of 316 EFTA00180462

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 57 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting ond Transcription, Inc 57 of 316 Page 31 No. A. Let me ask you two final areas Q. All right. of questioning about this and we'll move onto something else. Okay? Uh-huh. Yes. I'm sorry. A. 6 Q. Before you got to Epstein's did anyone + associated with Epstein ever call you on the phone and 8 try to persuade, induce, entice or coerce you to engage 9 in any sexual activity? | 10 A. No. 11 Q. Before you got to Epstein's did anybody 12 associated with Epstein ever contact you on the Internet 13 and try to persuade, induce, entice or coerce you to 14 engage in any sexual activity? 15 A. No. 16 Q. aa who told you that when you got to 17 Jeff Epstein's house you should lie to Jeff about your 18 age? 19 A. 20 Q. Was it or was it the other girl in 21 the car who you rode over with to Epstein's house? 23 Q. Who was the other girl in the car with you that day? A. I honestly don't know. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180463

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 58 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting andl Transcription, Inc Had you ever seen her before? A. No, sir. Q. You told the police that when you rode over to Epstein's you had no idea who she was, right? A. Correct. Q. You told the police that you didn't know she was like really dark, kind of like a her name, but Spanish girl? A. Yes. Q. Those were your words, right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Do you now know who she is? 13 A. No, sir. 14 Q. So it was wa told you to lie about 15 your age to Jeff Epstein? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 Q. And wa told you that if you weren't 18, Epstein wouldn't let you into his house, right? 19 A. That's -- yes, yes. 20 Q. All right. Let's talk for a minute about when you first met Jeff. Okay? A. Sure. Q. When you first met Jeff he tried to find out how old you were, right? A. Excuse me? Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 58 of 316 EFTA00180464

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 59 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting ond Transcriptinn, Inc. Page 33 Q. When you first met Jeff he tried to find out how old you were, right? A. Not when we first introduced each other; when we get upstairs, then, yes. Q. During the massage Jeff asked you how old you were, correct? A. Yes, yes. oY Dn YF F&F WwW NY Q. Now hadn't you already told Jeff's to college and had just moved down here from Ohio? A. I never spoke to the lady. Q. Do you want to rethink that answer? MR. LEOPOLD: Is that a question? BY MR. TEIN: Q. Do you want to rethink that answer? A. No. I didn't really speak with her that Q. Do you want to try to refresh your memory on that? MR. LEOPOLD: Do you have something to refresh her memory with? MR. TEIN: Do you want to stop making speaking objections? MR. LEOPOLD: No. But to refresh someone's memory, you show them a document. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682,1771 1655 Paln Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 | i i | j i | assistant, the one who walked you upstairs, that you went 59 of 316 EFTA00180465

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D, ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 60 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting oni Transctiption, Inc. Page 34 1 MR. TEIN: I know how to do this. 2 MR. LEOPOLD: Then show her a document. 3 MR. TEIN: Stop speaking. MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not going to stop speaking. I'm going to continue to make the record. You're obstructing. Please MR. TEIN: MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not obstructing. But if you want to refresh her recollection, you need to show her something. I object to That's not a proper question, the foundation and the predicate of that question. 14 MR. TEIN: Are you done? I am now. Thank you. LEOPOLD: MR. BY MR. TEIN: Q. Do you want to try to refresh your memory as to whether you had any conversation with the woman who walked you upstairs in Epstein's house in which you told her that you went to college and had just moved down from Ohio? 22 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Object to the form of the question. Lack of foundation and predicate. BY MR. TEIN: Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 60 of 316 EFTA00180466

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM piecrent 1 er d on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 61 of 100 61 of 316 nsor SOciates Reporting ani Transcription, Inc Q. You can answer the question. A. Sure. Q. Is there anything that would refresh your memory that in fact you told Mr. Epstein's assistant, the one who walked you upstairs, that you went to college and you had just moved down here from Ohio? A. I don't remember saying that, but if you -- ay Dn OF SF W DY FR I don't remember saying that myself, so -~ 9 Q. That would be a lie, right? 10 A. No. I really don't remember. 11 Q. So you told Jeff that you were 18 years 12 old, correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Do you remember Detective Michelle Pagan of 15 the Police Department, Palm Beach Police Department? 16 A. Yes. : 17 Q. Do you remember you spoke to her? ; 18 A. Yes, 19 Q. Do you remember that you told Detective : 20 Pagan that when you lied about your age to Jeff you said | 21 it really fast because you didn't want to make it sound 22 like you were lying? 23 A. I don't remember the words exactly, but I 24 do remember telling her I told him I was 18. 25 Q. And do you remember telling Detective Pagan Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180467

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 62 of 100 sor & Associates Reporing ond Transcription, Inc. Page 36 that when you lied to Epstein about your age that you said it really fast so Epstein wouldn't realize you were ly:ng? 4 A. No, I don't remember saying those words exactly to her. I remember telling her that I told Epstein I was 18. Q. Does it sound right to you that you told Detective Pagan that you said your age really fast to Epstein -- MS. BELOHLAVEK: Objection. Asked and answered. BY MR. TEIN: 13 Q. -- so he wouldn't think that you were MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and answered, lack of foundation, mischaracterization She's already answered of her earlier testimony. that question. 19 BY MR. TEIN: | | | 20 Q. You can answer it. 21 MR. LEOPOLD: Same objection. It's been asked and answered. 23 You can answer. I've made the objection. 24 THE WITNESS: I forget the question, now. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180468

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 63 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting and Tranacripzinn, Inc. 63 of 316 BY MR. TEIN: Q. Let me put it again. Does it sound right to you that you told Detective Pagan that when you lied about your age to Jeffrey Epstein, you said it really fast because you didn't want to make it sound like you were lying? MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Lack of foundation, asked and answered. 9 THE WITNESS: I could have possibly said that, yes. BY MR, TEIN: Q. You didn't want Mr. Epstein to know that you were lying about your age, right? A. Correct. 15 Q. You didn't want Mr. Epstein to know that you were not 18 yet, right? A. Correct. 18 Q. You wanted Mr. Epstein to believe that you really were 18, right? A. Correct. Q. Do you remember when Mr. Epstein asked where you went to school? A. Yes, 24 Q. And you told Mr. Epstein you went to right? Wellington, Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180469

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 64 of 100 nsor & Associates Roporting and Transcription, Inc Yes. Was that the truth? No. right? In fact, you went to Royal Palm, Yes. So you lied to Mr. Epstein again, correct? Yes. Q. Is Wellington the college that you told Jeff's assistant that you were attending? 10 A. I don't remember having that conversation 11 with her, so I wouldn't know if that's what I said. 12 Q. That was a lie, though, wasn't it? 13 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection to the form of the 14 question, lack of foundation. You're making an 15 assumption. She just answered you she can't tell 16 you that. 17 MR. TEIN: Speaking objection. And you 18 well know that, Mr. Leopold. 19 MR. LEOPOLD: She can't answer that 20 question. The way you phrased that question, 21 you're purposely making her not be honest in her 22 testimony. She can't answer a question like that. 23 She doesn't remember. So then you say, "So you That's improper and you know that. were lying." That's not a proper question. And any attorney Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 64 of 316 EFTA00180470

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Docyment1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 65 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting and Transeriptian, Inc Page 39 that would do that to a witnesses or to a person that's sitting in this chair is not acting professionally. You can't ask a question like that. You can do it, but it's not proper. And a I'm sure you weren't trained that way, certainly 5 6 not ethically. 7 MR. TEIN: Will you stop? 8 MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not going to stop, Gg because the way you're asking that question is 10 improper and you know it. il MR. TEIN: You're losing your cool. 12 BY MR. TEIN: 13 Q. us. GD -- 14 MR. LEOPOLD: Trust me. I'm very calm, 15 When I lose my cool, you'll know it. 16 MR. TEIN: I do know it. 17 BY MR. TEIN: 18 Q. Ms. | | Mr. Epstein never asked you to do anything other than massage him, correct? because he asked me to take off A. Incorrect; my bra, so that would be two things he's asked me to do. Q. Other than asking you to take your bra off, 23 Mr. Epstein never asked you to do anything with him other than massage, correct? 25 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Foundation, Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 65 of 316 EFTA00180471

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM .- ent 1 ntered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 66 of 100 sor Associa CS Roporting and Transctiptinn, Inc. Page 40 predicate. THE WITNESS: Correct. BY MR. TEIN: Q. You told the police, in your words, that 5 you did not whack him off, right? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. What does that mean? 8 A. Whack, like whacking off? 9 Q. Your term, what does that mean? 10 A. Masturbating. 11 Q. Mr. Epstein never tried at any time to grab 12 your hand, did he? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Mr. Epstein never tried to put your hand 15 anywhere, did he? 16 A. No. 17 Q. At no time did you touch Mr. Epstein's 2 penis, did you? 19 A. No. 20 Q. And he did not touch you, correct? 21 A. Incorrect. 22 Q. Well, you told the police, "At no time did 23 he touch me." Were you lying to the police then? 24 A. No. Well, I wasn't being fully truthful, ; 25 but I wasn't lying. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 66 of 316 EFTA00180472

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM [ ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 67 of 100 67 of 316 ory n ww & WwW NH nsor & Associates Roporting and Transeriptinn, Inc, Page 41 Q. You told the police twice when you spoke to Michelle Pagan that "at no time did he touch me." Didn't you say that to the police? A. Yeah. Q. And you're saying that that was not fully truthful. Is that what you're saying now? A, Correct. Q. And you're saying if you're not fully truthful, that's not a lie. Correct? A. You took that out of context like really bac. I didn't mean like that. Touching my legs and -- he never kept his hands to himself the entire time. That's what I'm trying to say. Q. You told the police, "At no times did he touch me." You agree with that, correct? A. No, I don't agree with that, because he did touch me. Q. Did you tell the police that he did not touch you, yes or no? A. It's a possibility, but I do not remember. Q. Okay. And you did not have any type of sex with Jeff, correct? A. No. Q. And you did not have any type of oral sex with Jeff, correct? Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180473

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 68 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting ond Tranacriptinn, Inc. Page 42 No. No type of intercourse with Jeff, correct? Correct. 4 Q. All right. Let's talk about what happened after the massage was over. A. Okay. Q. After the massage, you told Epstein that —! you wanted to bring your twin sister back so she could make some money, correct? A. Incorrect. 11 Q. Your twin sister is wa right? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. And you love aw: much, don't you? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And when you left the house you were joking with the other girls, weren't you? Incorrect. A. 18 Q. Well, when a7. the other girl in the 19 car that day made their statements to the police they 20 told the police that you were joking afterwards. Are you 21 saying that they were lying to the police about that? 22 A. No. But a question or -- questions from 2 | os like she asked me questions, but it wasn't joking. She was kind of like in a happy way, like, "Oh, Like those kind of what did you do? What did you do?" Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 68 of 316 EFTA00180474

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 nsor & Associates Reporting ond Transcription, Inc. 69 of 316 things, but it wasn't joking about it at all. 2 Q. You joked about it, didn't you? 3 A. No. 4 Q. You said to We if you did this 5 every weekend you'd be rich, didn't you? 6 A. No. That's what a: me. 7 Q. You didn't tell that to a 8 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and 9 answered. 10 THE WITNESS: No. 11 BY MR. TEIN: 12 Q. After you left Epstein's house you took the 13 money and you went shopping with ae: the other 14 girl in the car, correct? 15 A. Incorrect. I didn't spend any of the 16 money. 17 Q. You went to Marshall's, didn't you? 18 A. I went along, yes, but I didn't -- 19 Q. You went shopping with them at Marshall's, didn't you? 21 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. THE WITNESS: I guess you could say that. 23 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Lack of predicate and foundation. Mischaracterization of earlier testimony. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Paln Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 69 of 100 EFTA00180475

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 70 of 100 nsor & Associates Roponing and Transcription, Inc. Page 44 BY MR. TEIN: 1 2 Q. And | ae a purse, right? 3 . A. Yes. Q. And you were with her the whole time at Marshall's, correct? A. Yes. Now tell me about when the federal Q. prosecutors told you about getting reimbursed. A. I have no idea what you're talking about. 1 Q. Tell me about when the federal prosecutors spcke to you about getting money you feel you're entitled to from Mr. Epstein. 13 A I don't know what you're talking about. 14 Q. Do you know who Marie Villafona is? 15 A No, sir. 16 Q. Did you ever meet with any federal 17 prosecutors? 18 A. I think -- yeah. I think they were -- I 19 think they were like FBI. 20 Q. Uh-huh. Did you meet with federal 21 prosecutors? 22 A. They came to my house one time, yes. 23 Q. When did they come to your house? Very long ago. Was it this year, 2008? Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 70 of 316 EFTA00180476

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM_ - ent 1 pied on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 71 of 100 Ti of 316 sor SOcIAates Roponing ond Transcription, Inc, It was not this year, no. Q. Was it 2007? A. I'd have to say at least two years ago or a year ago, yeah. So it would be 2007, 2006; but it was a while ago. Q. How many federal prosecutors or FBI agents came to your house? A. I'm trying to remember. I want to say four peoole came. Q. Did they give you their business cards? A. If they did, I don't remember, and they weren't toward me. Maybe my parents have them. I don't know. Did they give you their cell phone numbers? No, Did you ever speak to them on their cell phones? A. No, sir. Q. Did they speak to your parents? A. That's something you'd have to ask my parents. Q. Do you know whether they spoke to your parent's? A. No, sir. Q. You have no idea? Fax, 561.682.1771 SS Ph, 561.682.0905 - 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180477

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM | ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 72 of 100 sor & Associates " Reporting and Transcripting, Inc, No, sir. MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and answered. BY MR. TEIN: Q. So if I say the name to you Marie Villafona, you don't know who that is? A. No, sir. ony nn Ww oo Q. How many women and how many men came to your house? 10 A. I want to say two ladies and two guys. 11 Q. Did someone named Jeffrey Sloman come to 12 your house? 13 A. I don't know names, sir. 14 Q. Do you know who Jeffrey Sloman is? 15 A. No, sir. 16 Q Do you know who Jeffrey Herman is? 17 A Yes. 18 Q. That's the lawyer who first sued Epstein on 19 your behalf, right? A. Yes. 21 Q. Has Mr. Herman advanced your family any money? MR. LEOPOLD: Any conversations that you've had with Mr. Herman regarding that issue, you are not to disclose. If you've learned in some other Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Sulte 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 72 of 16 EFTA00180478

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 — Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 73 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting ant Transcription, Inc. T3 of 116 Ww N onyn w 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 <é 25 fashion, you may answer. THE WITNESS: Okay. I wouldn't know. BY MR. TEIN: Q. You don't know? A. No. MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Foundation. Attorney/client privilege. BY MR. TEIN: Q. And you say you don't know who Jeff Sloman is? A. No, sir. Q. Does it refresh your recollection that he's the number two prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney's Office? A. No. Q. That he's Marie Villafona's boss? A. No. Q. Does it refresh your memory that he's the ex-partner of Jeff Herman, the first lawyer who sued you -~ sued Mr. Epstein on your behalf for fifty million dollars? , A. No, sir. I don't know who he is. Q. Without telling me any conversations that you've had with your lawyers, how is it that you selected Mr. Herman as your lawyer from the 81,000 members of the Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180479

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM igyment1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 74 of 100 nsor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc. Florida Bar? A. I did not select him. Who did? My father. Did you ever meet Mr. Herman? Once. Q. Don't -- don't tell me what you discussed with him. Where did you meet him? A. I was shopping in my ~~ he showed up at my friend's house. Q. Whose house? Q. Is that ; | from the Quarterdeck Tavern? A. Yes. Q. And did you have a meeting with him at Ga ---- A. Yes. I guess you could say that. Q. And who else was there? A. My Aunt aa Q. And what was that meeting about? MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. That calls for attorney/client privilege. BY MR. TEIN: Q. What discussions did you have with ae oe Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 74 of 316 EFTA00180480

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 75 of 100 nsor & Associates f Reporting and Transcriptinn, Inc. Mr. Herman in the presence or >: A. None. Q. What discussions did you have in the presence of her aunt? A. Of my aunt? MR. GOLDBERGER: It's the witness's aunt. BY MR. TEIN: Q. Oh, of your aunt. A. The only one that we've ever discussed or Q. And so you were in a conversation with Mr. Herman and your aunt? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you discussed privileged matters during that conversation? MR. LEOPOLD: Object to the form. I think you might have to educate her on that question. BY MR. TEIN: Q. You discussed the lawsuit? A. Yes. Q. Did , =e you about any conversations that she had with Mr. Herman? A. As far as I'm concerned, she's never spoken or she's never had a conversation. She only opened the door and then left. She's the one who answered the door. Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Pelm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 75 of 316 EFTA00180481

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 76 of 100 sor & Associates Reporing anid ‘Transcription, Inc. Page 50 Why did the meeting take place at , I spent the night that night at her house. And when was this? A while ago. How long ago? I'm guessing. A month and a half ago. A month and a half ago? Uh-huh, Herman filed So was it before of after Mr. Q. the fifty-million-dollar lawsuit against Epstein? 12 A. After. 13 Q. Did you meet with an FBI agent named Nesbitt Kurkendall, a woman? A. I don't know. 16 Q. Did Ms. Kurkendall speak to you about Epstein? getting reimbursed from Mr. 18 A. I've never had a discussion with anyone reimbursed from Mr. Epstein. about getting Q. Have you met with an agent named Jason Richards? A. Not to my knowledge. How about an agent named Tim Slater? No, sir. How about an agent named Junior Ortiz? Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 76 of 316 EFTA00180482

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Di ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 77 of 100 nsor & Associates Heparting ond Transcription, Inc. TT of 316 Page 51 A. No, Q. And we've learned that many of the girls, some of whom are as old as 23, were told by the government that they would get money at the end of the Does that sound familiar to you?’ criminal prosecution. A. sir. No, Q. Other than Mr, Leopold here -- I'm not asking about Mr. Herman either -- A. Uh-huh, 10 Q. -- did anyone ever discuss with you that you could get reimbursement for your damages? A. sir, No, Did you or any member -~ Q. MR. LEOPOLD: Are you referring to a criminal matter or a civil matter? BY MR. TEIN: Q. Did you or any member -- Excuse me. Let me object to MR. LEOPOLD: the form of the question. BY MR, TEIN: 21 Q. Did you or any member of your family ever get a victim notification letter from anyone? A. I no longer live at that residence and I wouldn't know. So your testimony is that you have never Q. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180483

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 78 of 100 78 of 316 sor & Associates Hoporting andl “lransoription, ‘Inc. neoawved a victim notification letter, correct? rect. we Ne Q. And your testimony is that you don't know if your parents have ever received a victim notification letter, correct? A. Correct. Have you given any evidence to prosecutors Q. or law enforcement in this case? 8 ) A. What do you mean by evidence? 10 Q. Well. Anything that you can touch or feel. A. No. 12 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection to the form of the question. BY MR. TEIN: 15 Q. So you haven't given anything physical -- A. No. 17 Q. -- any item to any prosecutor, police officer or law enforcement agent, correct? A. My cell phone four years ago or three years 19 ago, but that's it. 21 Q. You gave your cell phone to whom? Michelle Pagan. Did she keep it? Ask her. You gave it to her and then you didn't get Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180484

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 79 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc. Page 53 | it back at the end of the meeting? A. No. ‘They -- yeah. No. They have it. I'm Ww NO F&F guessing. I don't have it. Q. How much money are you hoping to get out of Mr. Epstein? MR. LEOPOLD: Objection to the form of the question. Attorney/client privilege. BY MR. TEIN: ony nm wow How much money are you hoping to get, you, Q. yourself, hoping to get out of Epstein? MR. LEOPOLD: Same. Same objection, attorney/client privilege. Don't answer the question. BY MR. TEIN: Q. I'm not asking about what your lawyer told I'm instructing her not to MR. LEOPOLD: answer the question, because any of those conversations involve her counsel. 20 MR. TEIN: Certify that. Please. MR. LEOPOLD: BY MR. TEIN: 24 Q. Now, a you lied to get out of this 25 deposition, didn't you? Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 rrr ra 79 of 316 EFTA00180485

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 80 of 100 sor & Associates Roporting and Transcription, Inc Page 54 1 A. No, sir. Q. You didn't want to come to court today and tell the story that you had told to the police under > WwW DN oath, did you? MR. LEOPOLD: Object to the form of the question. Lack of foundation, predicate. THE WITNESS: No. I have no problem coming ont nn ww here and talking to you. BY MR. TEIN: 10 Q. And to avoid getting served with a lawful subpoena, you lied about your name, didn't you? A. No. 13 Q. And in fact, just lying yourself wasn't enough, was it? 15 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection to the form of the question. 17 Don't answer it. It's not a question. Object to the form of the question. Lack ' 19 of foundation. 20 MR. TEIN: Are you instructing her not to | 21 answer? 22 MR. LEOPOLD: I am. 23 MR. TEIN: Certify it. 24 MR. LEOPOLD: Please. ; 25 Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180486

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 sor & Associates Roporting and Transoriptinn, Inc. 81 of 316 BY MR, TEIN: You asked your co-workers -- Q. MR. LEOPOLD: It's vague and ambiguous. Cs BY MR. TEIN: Q. You asked your co-workers at the Querterdeck Tavern to lie for you, didn't you? ost nN YH A. No. I informed my boss about what was going on and he told me that he would help in any way that he can. 11 Q. Okay. You got your friend MP te lie by switching name tags with you, correct? Incorrect. It was a coincidence that same A. night she was not wearing her name tag; she was wearing 15 mine. But I was also not wearing -- I was wearing my name tag. Everyone switches name tags. It just so happens it was a coincidence that same night the people came with the papers. 19 MR. TEIN: Will you put up Exhibit 18-001? 20 MR. GOLDBERGER: And mark 18-001 for 21 identification purposes to this deposition. 22 MR. LEOPOLD: None of them have been marked 23 yet. Can we mark them and put them as attachment to the depositions? Because I think you've shown three photos now. And this is the only one that Ph, 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Paim Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 81 of 100 EFTA00180487

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 82 0 sor & Associates Roporting and Transcription, Inc 82 of 316 has been marked for identification yet. BY MR. TEIN: o =p -- MR. LEOPOLD: Hold on just a second. Just WwW dh > so the record is clear -- MR. TEIN: I'm not speaking to you. Then don't speak to me MR. LEOPOLD: Okay. 8 then. But I'll speak to Mr. Goldberger, perhaps. But at least for the record, can we put on the record what the previous two photographs were marked for identification? 12 MR. GOLDBERGER: We will make sure that the 13 record is clear at the end of the deposition so 14 that there's no ambiguity. 15 MR. LEOPOLD: Thank you. 16 BY MR. TEIN: 17 Q. az I've put a photograph marked 18-001 18 up on the screen. Do you see that? 19 A. Yup. 20 Q. Who is that in the photo? 21 A. , the left and me on the right. 22 Q. iL tid@Cd right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. b .---] your friend at the 25 Quarterdeck Tavern, right? Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 1655 Palrn Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 f 100 EFTA00180488

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 83 of 100 83 of 316 sor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc, Page 57 A. Yes. | friend, who you say the day that the process servers went to serve you with a Q. 4 subpoena for this deposition, just happened -- just by 5 coincidence, was wearing your name tag? 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 Q. And just by coincidence, you were wearing 8 her name tag, correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Your testimony under oath is that's just a 11 coincidence, right? 12 A. Total honesty. 13 Q. It just happens to be the day that you were 14 going to be served with a subpoena, correct? 15 A. That wasn't the first day that -- 16 MR. LEOPOLD: Gp answer the 17 question. It calls for a yes or no. 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 BY MR. TEIN: 20 Q. You said that wasn't the first day you were 21 going to be -- you thought you were being served with a 22 subpoena, correct? Correct. A. 24 Q. You knew before the day that you switched name tags with im: the process servers were Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180489

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 84 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting and Transotiptinn, Inc. looking for you, didn't you? A. No. I knew -- Ww NY MR. LEOPOLD: Just answer it. It calls for a yes or no. THE WITNESS: Okay. No. BY MR. TEIN: Q. Now you can explain the answer that your counsel stopped you from explaining. 9 A. Okay. I work at Quarterdeck and people were telling me that people were looking for me. So yes, I was aware that people were searching for me. But I had no idea who they were or what their intentions were. But , 13 I thought they were just people I didn't want to talk to. 14 So I just didn't want to talk to them. And every time 15 they'd come to work I wasn't there. And so happens the 16 night that they came in me and my friend switched name | 17 tags. No big deal. 18 Q. That's a lie, isn't it? 19 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection, Don't answer that 20 question. That's harassment and I will not allow 21 it. He could ask the questions and we'll allow a 22 jury to make that determination, but not counsel. 23 , I will not allow her to answer that’ 24 question. 25 MR. TEIN: Certify it. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Sof Is EFTA00180490

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 85 of 316 sor & Associates Rononiag and Transcription, Inc. MR. LEOPOLD: I'll certify it. Ww nN She's answered that question. She's explained it five tines already. The fact that Counsel doesn't like the a 5 answer, that's a different query. 6 MR. TEIN: Stop making speaking objections. 7 MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not. I'm not going to 8 put up with it, because it's in appropriate, Jack, i 9 and you know it. I will not allow Counsel to | 10 berate a witness, whether it's in a criminal case 11 or a civil case, whether my client or -~ 12 MR. TEIN: Calm down. 13 ° MR. LEOPOLD: Excuse me. 14 No, I'm not going to allow it. That is not : 15 proper. 16 MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. 17 MR. LEOPOLD: If he wants to say that she's 18 lying after asking it five times and her 19 explaining in great detail, he can do that. But 2 I'm not going to allow her to answer, nor be 21 harassed by him. It's improper. | 22 MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. But your response 23 that Counsel doesn't like the question -- or doesn't like the answer -- just let me finish. 25 MR, LEOPOLD: Absolutely. I wasn't going Ph. 561.682.0905 ~ Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180491 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 85 of 100

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 86 of 100 sor & Associates Roporting and Transcription, Joc Page 60 to interrupt you. MR. GOLDBERGER: Just requires us to say we like the answer to that question. And it's not you and I or you and Mr. Tein who are testifying here. It's the witness. MR. LEOPOLD: Fine. But after the sixth time of asking the same question and then coming onyn we Ww wp back and pointing a finger at her and saying, “You're a liar" -- 10 MR. TEIN: That didn't happen. MR. LEOPOLD: That's fine. But I'm not going to allow her to answer that question, because she's answered that same question and has explained it. Now Counsel might be sitting there rubbing That's his problem. his head with a migraine. But if he can't ask a question appropriately in a professional manner, we will leave. I will not allow her to be berated like that. MR. GOLDBERGER: Actually, we're very happy with the answer. 22 MR. LEOPOLD: That's great. 23 MR. GOLDBERGER: Do you want us to get into MR. TEIN: Ted -- Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Sof 16 EFTA00180492

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

87 of 316 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM cument 1 sor & Associates Reporting and Transorimion, Inc. « 1 MR, LEOPOLD: This is really big stuff that 2 you're going through. But that's fine; just ask 3 your question and move on, But do it one time. 4 If you don't understand it, I'll let you follow 5 up, but I'm not going to allow you to ask the same 6 question time and again and then call her a liar. 7 Just ask the question, get the answer and move to 8 the next subject matter. MR. TEIN: Ted, I'm sitting right across the table from you. 11 MR, LEOPOLD: Yes, sir. 12 MR. TEIN: Please be quiet. Don't yell. 13 MR. LEOPOLD: I will not be quiet. 14 MR. TEIN: Stop yelling. MR. LEOPOLD: Lewis, when I'm yelling you'll know it. I will not ~- 17 MR. TEIN: My name is not Lewis. MR. LEOPOLD: 1 thought your first name was 19 Lewis, Mr. Tein. 20 MR. TEIN: You watched me for three days at 21 the evidentiary hearing where you sat in the back 22 of the courtroom. You should know who I am. 23 MR. LEOPOLD: Well, that's the impression 24 you must have made in the courtroom. I will not be quiet. = To — Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Bivd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Page 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 87 of 100 EFTA00180493

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 88 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc Page 62 MR. TEIN: That's obnoxious. Stop being obnoxious. It's stupid. Let's go ahead with the questions. MR. LEOPOLD: I will make the record. MR. TEIN: Let's get on with the questions. MR. LEOPOLD: Do you need a break? (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) BY MR. TEIN: Q. Okay. ae you told your manager at the Quarterdeck Tavern everything that was going on and he told you he would help you any way he could, he hid you in the kitchen from the process servers, correct? ) A. Incorrect. Q. Isn't it true that lying to avoid service is a meaningless lie to you, A. Incorrect. Q. What is your manager's name? A. I have three. Would you like to know Who's the one who lied for you? And what did | do to lie for you? Said I wasn't there. And who did he tell wasn't there? Ask him. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 88 of 316 EFTA00180494

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 89 of 100 89 of 316 nsor & Associates Roparting and Transcription, Inc Page 63 Q. Where were you when aw: this someone that you were not at the Quarterdeck Tavern? A. Eating nachos. Q. At the Quarterdeck Tavern? A. Yes. Q. What did you do so that GF vee lie to the process servers for you? A. Nothing. Q. You just got him to lie for you, didn't you? A. No. I had no influence on him saying I wasn't there. Q. He took that upon himself? Isn't it true that Mr, Epstein's process servers had to ask the police to get you out of the restaurant so that they could serve you? MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Lack of foundation, predicate. BY MR. TEIN: Q. You can answer the question. MR. LEOPOLD: If you know. Don't guess, THE WITNESS: No. Can you repeat the question? MR. TEIN: Don't coach. MR. LEOPOLD: Don't guess. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180495

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dacument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 90 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc Page 64 MR. TEIN: That's a coaching. That's an instruction to MR. LEOPOLD: No. the client. You don't do that. No. MR. TEIN: THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question? 5 6 MR. LEOPOLD: Let me just state for the 7 record -- 8 BY MR. TEIN: 9 Q. Once the police -- isn't it true that 10 Mr. Epstein's process servers had to ask the police to get you out of the restaurant so that they could serve you? 13 A. Incorrect. My boss called the police. 14 Q. And once the police showed up, to stop you from lying to avoid service, you made up another lie that the process servers had harassed you. Isn't that correct? A. Incorrect. 19 Q. You lie all the time, don't you? 20 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. THE WITNESS: Incorrect. 22 BY MR. TEIN: 23 Q. You have a MySpace page, don't you? 24 A. No longer do I have a MySpace page. I deleted it. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 90 of 316 EFTA00180496

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Docyment1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 91 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting ond Transcription, Inc. “ Page 65 Q. When did you delete your MySpace page? A. A couple days ago. Ww NO Q. Who told you to take your MySpace page down a couple of days ago? A. Nobody. I'm sick and tired of MySpace. Q. You all of a sudden got sick and tired of MySpace and just a few days before this deposition you decided to delete your MySpace page, correct? A. Correct. 10 Q. Is that your testimony under oath? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did you take your MySpace page down because 13 you thought the government might subpoena it? 14 A. Incorrect. 15 Q. Hadn't your MySpace page been up for over 16 three months before you took it down? 17 A. Correct. But I also had made tons of 18 MySpaces over the last years. I just get tired of them 19 and delete them because -- drama -- and make new ones. 20 Q. We're going to talk about that. 21 So you deleted your MySpace page after you 22 were already under subpoena for this deposition, correct? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. What about the MySpace page didn't you want us to see, Gy ‘ Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 91 of 316 EFTA00180497

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Cc :08-cv- - ase 9:08-cv-80804-KAM cument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 92 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting-and Transcripzion, Inc. Page 66 A. Nothing. Q. Well, we're going to come back to MySpace in a second. Ww NY 4 A. You do that. 5 Q. waa: going to ask you some questions 6 about why you lie about your age so often, okay? 7 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection to the form. 8 Argumentative. 9 BY MR. TEIN: 10 Q. You lie about your age all the time, don't 11 you? 12 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection, argumentative. - 13 THE WITNESS: Incorrect. 14 BY MR. TEIN: 15 Q. You lie about your age to get body 16 piercings, don't you? 17 A. Incorrect. You have body piercings, don't you? Q. A. Yes. You have four body piercings; isn't that Five. A. Q. Other than the piercings on your ears ~~ I'm not talking about that -- 25 A. Oh, then no; just one. Tae Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 02 of 316 EFTA00180498

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Di ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 93 of 100 93 of 316 nsor & Associates Koporting and Transcription. dnc. Page 67 And where is the one body piercing? Belly. When did you get that? For my birthday, with my stepmother and my father. And when was that? A. When I was 14. Q. Okay. So you had that body piercing when you met Epstein, correct? A. It might have been, or maybe that -- yeah, either my 14th birthday or my 15th. I honestly don't remember. Q. Now you've lied about your age to get into bars by using driver's licenses that aren't yours, correct? A. Incorrect. Q. Are you swearing under oath that you've never done that? A. Yes, I swear under oath. Q. And you've lied about your age to buy beer, correct? A. Incorrect. Q. You're swearing under oath that you've never lied to stores about your age? A. I've never lied to a store about my age or Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Paim Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180499

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9;08-cv-80804-KAM ment1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 94 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting ond Transeriptinn, Inc. Page 68 anything. Q. You try to look much older than you are, don't you? 4 A. Incorrect. 5 Q. And you've lied about your age on your 6 MySpace pages, don't you? 7 A. Incorrect. 8 Q. All right. Let's look at Exhibit 26-01 9 one. 10 MS. BELOHLAVEK: 26-001? 11 MR. TEIN: Yes. 12 BY MR. TEIN: } 13 Q. On this page you lied to everyone that you 14 were 18, didn't you? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Let's go to Exhibit 33. 17 MS. BELOHLAVEK: That's 33-001? 1 TEIN: Correct. 19 BY MR. TEIN: 20 Q. On this page you lied to everyone that you 21 were 19, didn't you? 22 A. Incorrect. 23 MR. LEOPOLD: Just answer the question. 24 THE WITNESS: Oh, incorrect. BY MR. TEIN: Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 04 of 316 EFTA00180500

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 95 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting ani Transeriptinn, Inc. Page 69 Q. Now you can explain your answer. A. I know that I have seen all of these and I know that this one is mine. Can you go down? MR. LEOPOLD: Just for the record, you're pointing to the photo. THE WITNESS: I'm pointing to -~ BY MR. TEIN: 9 Q. You're pointing to the one where it says your age is 18? A. Correct, right? Q. That's yours, 13 A. Correct. That's mine from a couple years ago that I have not been on, because I don't use that. And I think that's it, Please keep going down, please. because there's no one -- just that one is mine. Q. So the one you pointed to where it says your age is 18, that's yours, correct? 19 A. Correct. 2 Q. And when you wrote 18 as your age on your 21 MySpace page, that was a lie, wasn't it? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. Did you lie about your MySpace page back 24 then because you couldn't post on MySpace unless you were 18? PSP Rae oe Tee i | | 1 Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 95 of 316 EFTA00180501°

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Docyment1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 96 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting and Transcripnon, Inc. Page 70 A. Correct. There was a rule many years ago that you had to be 18 to have a MySpace. Q. So you lied about your age so you could post on MySpace, right? A. Yes. Q. Let's go back to the top one on this page, Are you testifying now under oath that this MySpace page where the headline says, "Twins do have more fun," and the location is given as Lox, abbreviation for Loxahatchee, and the age is 19, and it says ip qu” - it your testimony that you did not post that? A. Correct. Q. Now let's go back to the one that you were pointing to before on this page, where it says your age is 18 and you lied about your age to post MySpace, okay? A. Uh-huh, yes. Q. All right. Why did you finally put your true age on your MySpace profile four days before you were scheduled to testify before the Grand Jury? A. I don't know what you're talking about. MR. LEOPOLD: If you don't understand, ask him to ask the question again. MR. TEIN: Don't coach. Tas eave case aa te Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 96 of 316 EFTA00180502

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 97 of 100 97 of 316 ony Dn V's Ww YO HY sor & Associates * Reporting and Transesiptinn, Inc. Page 71 THE WITNESS: I don't know which MySpace you're talking about. BY MR. TEIN: Q. The MySpace page that you're just pointing to, where it says you were 18, A. Yes. Q. And you were lying about your age, right? A. Uh-huh. Q. Why did you finally post your true age on your MySpace profile -- A. Uh -- Q. -- four days before you were scheduled to testify before the Grand Jury? A. I honestly don't know which MySpace, because I've had like a bazillion MySpaces, and in that year, I had two, that one and another one, and that one's been deleted. So I don't know which one you're referring to. Q. You remember that you changed your age on your MySpace page from 18 to your true age just four days before you went and testified in the Grand Jury? A. No. You don't remember that. No. Do you remember Detective Recarey? Did you Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 = = Fala TSIS BEF ENT nak ar aS TE ee ee at EFTA00180503

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 98 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting and Transcription, Inc, ever meet a Detective Recarey? A. I don't know the names. Q. How many different detectives have you met with on this case from Palm Beach? A. Probably a good six or seven, maybe. Q. Did one of the detectives tell you before you testified in the Grand Jury that you should take your aot n wm MySpace age and put your true age? A. No. Q. Didn't Detective Recarey have to come to 11 your house to pick you up to get you to testify in front of the Grand Jury? 13 A. Possibly; maybe because I didn't have a rice; I was only 14 or 15 at the time. Your mom didn't drive you? 15 Q. A No. Q. Stepmom didn't drive you? A I think my dad. Oh, my dad; my dad drove Q. Your dad drove you? A. Yes, sir. 22 Q. So your testimony is Detective Recarey did not drive you, correct? 24 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. /asked and answered. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00180504

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Di ent1 | Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 99 of 100 sor & Associates Roporting and Transctiptinn, Inc. Page 73 THE WITNESS: No. I'm pretty sure my dad drove me, because he was there with me. BY MR, TEIN: Q. Did any detective tell you to change your a: age on your MySpace page, to put your true age? A. No, sir. Q. Now you also lied on your MySpace page about your income, didn't you? A. Yes. 10 Q. And you lied, saying that you made a quarter million dollars a year and higher, correct? 12 A. As a joke, yes. | 13 Q. That was a lie, wasn't it? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And you also lied on your MySpace page, 16 saying that you were married, didn't you? 17 A. Possibly. And that might have been an 18 error on my part. 19 Q. Now you also lie to the police, don't you? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Well, you lied to the police in your 22 tape-recorded statement that you gave to Detective 23 Michelle Pagan three years ago, didn't you? 24 A. To my knowledge, no, I did not. 25 Q. Well, you lied to the police when you ee eee TR eee er ee Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 90 of 316 EFTA00180505

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

2 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 100 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting ont ‘Transcription, Inc, Page 74 accused Mr. Epstein of attempting to murder your father, didn't you? A. No. I never heard a statement saying that Mr. Epstein tried to murder my father. Q. You made that statement, didn't you? MR. LEOPOLD: Do you have a statement to That's been asked and answered. show her? MR. TEIN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the witness' answer, Mr. Leopold. | 10 BY MR. TEIN: 11 Q. a you told the police, didn't you, 12 that Mr. Epstein almost killed your father, didn't you? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Three years ago, before Mr. Epstein even 15 knew about this investigation, you told the police that 16 Epstein had "already come to my dad's house and did i7 something to my dad's tires and my dad almost died. I 18 didn't want my dad to get hurt, because Jeff already 19 almost killed him." 20 Didn't you say that? 21 A. Not to my knowledge or recollection. I 22 have never said anything like that. 23 Q. That would have been a complete lie, wou_dn't it have been? A. Yeah. Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax, 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 100 of 316 EFTA00180506