UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 and #2 L UNITED STATES / JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS The parties hereby stipulate and agree that the following facts are not in dispute and may be accepted as true: 1. [1]In 2006, at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) opened an investigation into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”) and his personal assistants had used facilities of interstate commerce to induce young girls between the ages of thirteen and seventeen to engage in prostitution, among other offenses. The case was presented to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, which accepted the case for investigation. The Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office was also investigating the-ease Epstein. See Declaration of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. at && 1-2 (hereinafter “Edwards Declaration”). 2. [2] The allegations investigated by the FBI included claims that, [b]etween about 2001 and 2006, defendant Jeffrey Epstein (a-bittionaire-with-signifieant-pelitieal-eonneetions)-sexually abused merethan40 enticed into prostitution minor girls at his mansion in West Palm Beach, Florida, and elsewhere. Among the girls he sexualy—abused was suspected of enticing were Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. Because Epstein, through others, used a means of interstate commerce and knowingly traveled in interstate commerce to engage in this conduct, to-abuse EFTA00206943

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Jane-Deoe+H-and—JaneDoe+2-and -the-other-vietims), he was investigated for committing eommitted-violations of federal law, specifically repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. 4. On about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe #1 a standard-CVRA-victim notification letter. See Edwards Declaration, Exhibit “A.” The notification promises that the Justice Department would makes its “best efforts” to protect Jane Doe #1’s rights, including “(t]he reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case” and “to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving... plea... .” The notification further explained that “[a]t this time, your case is under investigation.” That notification meant that the FBI had identified Jane Doe #1 as a potential victim of a federal offense. and as someone protected by the CVRA- 5. On about August 11, 2007, Jane Doe #2 received a standard CVRA victim notification letter. See Edwards Declaration, Exhibit “B.” The notification promised that the Justice Department would makes its “best efforts” to protect Jane Doe #2’s rights, including “[t]he reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case” and “to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving ... plea....” The notification further explained that “[a]t this time, your case is under investigation.” That notification meant that the FBI had identified Jane Doe #2 as a potential victim of a federal offense. and-as-someone-protected by she CX AL 6. Earhyin During the investigation, the FBI agents and the Assistant U.S. Attorney had-several meetings met with Jane Doe #1. Jane Doe #2 was represented by counsel that was paid for by EFTA00206944

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

the criminal target Epstein and, accordingly, all contact was made through that attorney. Jane Doe #2 was openly hostile to the investigation, and told investigators that she was not a victim of any offense, that Epstein was an “awesome man,” and that she would consider marrying Epstein. Jane Doe #2 actively avoided law enforcement’s attempts to secure her cooperation with the investigation and contacted other potential witnesses and victims to advise them against cooperating with the authorities. Edwards Declaration at & 5. 7. In and around September 2007, plea discussions took place between Jeffrey Epstein, represented by numerous attorneys (including lead criminal defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz), and the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of Florida.[,] represented—primarity—by negotiated more favorable plea terms so that Epstein would ultimately plead These plea negotiations eventually resulted in Epstein pleading guilty to only two state court felony offenses with a recommendation of 18 months’ imprisonment. and-would-serve-onlycounty Cepies Parts of the correspondence are attached as Exhibit J to the Edwards Declaration accompanying this filing (hereinafter cited as “U.S. Attorney's Correspondence” and referenced by Bates number stamp).! Because Epstein has moved to keep these documents from the public, they are at this time filed under seal with the Court. ' Phrough-diligent-effortsc- Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received copies of half of the e- mail correspondence (the half reflecting [J communications to defense counsel) via discovery requests served upon counsel for Epstein in connection with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2’s civil suits against Epstein on about June 30, 2010. See Edwards Declaration at & &20-22. EFTA00206945

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

8. At the time of plea discussions, AUSA }+Hhrfame-had drafted the-U-S-Attorney“s-Office-had an 82-page prosecution memorandum outlining aumereus federal sexual offenses committed by Epstein, and had prepared drafted a 53-page indictment. for-numerous—federat-offenses. U.S. Attorney’s Correspondence at 4. 44. On about September 24, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney A-Merie J sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, regarding the agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit _. Due+te-the-confidentiality-clause inthe Agreement, EFTA00206946

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

42: On about September 25, 2007, AUSA-EEEME sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit __. stating-~And-ean-we-have-e-conference-eall-to-diseuss ” te at 56. 13. On about September 26, 2007, AUSA. I sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit __. in-which-she-stated:-—“HiJay—Can-you-give-me-acall EFTA00206947

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

44. — On about September 27, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie J sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz regarding an attorney who was under discussion to be a representative of victims of Epstein civil litigation, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit _. revealed EFTA00206948

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

16. de ettertater-sent-byJay_hefkowitz_to-the-tS,_Attommey_forthe Southern _bistriet-of 17. On about September 24, 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office reached an agreement whereby the United States would defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office accordingly entered into a “Non- Prosecution Agreement” (NPA) reflecting their agreement. Mest-significanth,+ The NPA gave Epstein a promise that he would not be prosecuted for a series of federal felony offenses involving the enticement into prostitution of a large number of minor girls. invelhing—his sexualt-abuse-ofmerethan-30-niner-gitls; The NPA instead allowed Epstein to plead guilty to two state felony offenses for solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for EFTA00206949

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

prostitution. The NPA also set up a procedure whereby a victim of Epstein’s sexual abuse could obtain an attorney representative to proceed with a civil claim against Epstein, provided that the victim agreed to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (se which provided that the-each victim would recover agreed+e-seek no mere less than $150,000 in damages against Epstein — an amount that Epstein argued later was limited to no more than $50,000). See Edwards Declaration, Exhibit “C” (copy of the non-prosecution agreement). The agreement was signed by Epstein and his legal counsel, as well as the U.S. Attorney’s Office, on about September 24, 2007. 18. A provision in the non-prosecution agreement made the agreement confidential seeret. In particular, the agreement stated: “The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making the disclosure.” By-enteringinte-sueh-e-eonfidentiality-agreement—the EFTA00206950

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

20. The Non-Prosecution Agreement that had been entered into between the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Epstein was subsequently modified by an October 2007 Addendum and a December 19, 2007, letter from the U.S. Attorney to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez. See Supplemental Declaration of A. Marie QI). doc. #35, at 1; U.S. Attorney’s Correspondence at 234-37. On about August 14, 2008, Epstein’s defense counsel told the U.S. Attorney’s Office that they did not consider the December 19, 2007, letter to be operative. /d. 21. — In October 2007, shortly after the initial plea agreement was signed, Jane Doe #1 was contacted to be advised regarding the resolution of the investigation. On October 26, 2007, Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards met in person with Jane Doe #1. The Special Agents explained that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges, he would be required to register as a sex offender for life, and he had made certain concessions related to the payment of damages to the victims, including Jane Doe #1. During this meeting, the agents explained that this would end the federal investigation of the case and no federal charges would be filed. EFTA00206951

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

22. — Jane Doe #1's perception of the explanation provided by the Special Agents was that only the State part of the Epstein investigation had been resolved, and that the federal investigation would continue, possibly leading to a federal prosecution. Edwards Declaration at & 8. 23: On about November 27, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit. Fhe 24. On about November 29, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie sent a draft of a crime victim notification letter to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The notification letter explained: “I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office have reached an agreement containing the following terms... .” The letter then went on to explain that Epstein would plead guilty to two state offenses and receive an 18 month sentence. Fheetter-did-net EFTA00206952

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Attorney-s-Correspondence-at 256-59, 25. Apparenthy-beeause-of eoneernstrompstein-s—attorneys, Because Epstein’s attorneys sought higher review of the enforceability of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the U.S. Attorney’s Office never sent the proposed victim notification letter discussed in the previous paragraph to the victims. Instead, a misleading letter stating that the case was “currently under investigation” (described below) was sent in January 2008 and May 2008. At-ne-time-befere 26. On about December 6, 2007, Jeffrey H. Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit _. neting-the-U-S-Attorney"s EFTA00206953

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

28. On December 13, 2007, A. Marie [J sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein, , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit rebutting -chargesthat 30. Following the signing of the Agreement and the modifications thereto, Epstein’s performance was delayed while he sought higher level review within the Department of Justice. See U.S. Attorney’s Correspondence passim. EFTA00206954

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

31. On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received letters from the FBI advising them that “/t/his case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request you[r] continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation.” See Doc. #14 (attachments 3 and 4 to declaration of A. Marie I) (emphasis added). The-statementia 33. On about February 25, 2008, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit —-Epsteins—criminal defense EFTA00206955

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

290-94, 34. — In about April 2008, Jane Doe #1 contacted the FBI because Epstein's counsel was attempting to take her deposition and private investigators were harassing her. Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie [J secured pro bono counsel to represent Jane Doe #1. Pro bono counsel was able to assist Jane Doe #1 in avoiding the improper deposition. AUSA QR secured pro bono counsel by contacting Meg Garvin, Esq. of the the National Crime Victims’ Law Center in Portland, Oregon, which is based in the Lewis & Clark College of Law. During the call, Ms. Garvin was not advised that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached. 35. On May 30, 2008, another of Mr. Edwards’s clients who was recognized as an a potential victim of Epstein ¥ietim by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that “/t/his case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation.” Fhe-statement ” 36. In mid-June 2008, Mr. Edwards contacted AUSA [J to inform her that he represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. Mr. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein, hoping to secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein. AUSA [J and Mr. Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed. At the end of the call, AUSA [MJ asked Mr. Edwards to send any information that he wanted considered by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in determining whether to file federal charges. Beeause—of-the—confidentiality—provision—that—existed—in—the—plea EFTA00206956

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

af 7" soluti F the-eriminal imminent-—Fdwards-Deelarati 3 37. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA HE veceiveda copy of Epstein’s proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. AUSA [J and the Palm Beach Police Department attempted to provide notification to victims in the short time that Epstein’s counsel had provided. Attorney Edwards was called to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. AUSA- dia not tell Attorney Edwards that the gutlty pleas in-state court would bring an end to the possibility t s i i Ss ibili : AUSA | strongly encouraged Attorney Edwards and his client to attend and address the Court at sentencing if they so desired. 38. On June 30, 2008, AUSA [J sent an e-mail to Jack Goldberger, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit _.that-stated-—Jack-The 39. On July 3, 2008, Mr. Edwards sent to AUSA [Ma letter. See Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., at 15 (attachment 2). In the letter, Mr. Edwards indicated his client’s desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, he wrote on behalf of his clients: “We urge the Attorney General and our United States Attorney to consider the fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes EFTA00206957

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our children from this very dangerous sexual predator.” When Mr. Edwards wrote this letter, he was still unaware that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached with Epstein|.] — a-faet-that a Mr. Edwards first saw a reference to the NPA on or after July 9, 2008, when the Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe’s emergency petition. That-pleading—was—the—first-_public Edwards Declaration at & 15. 40. On July 9, 2008, AUSA [J sent a victim notification to Jane Doe #1 via her attorney, Bradley Edwards. Edwards Declaration, Exhibit “H.” That notification contains a written explanation of some of the terms of the agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. A full copy of the terms was not provided. A notification was not provided to Jane Doe #2 because the agreement limited Epstein’s liability to victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. As a result, Jane Doe #2 never received a notification a letter about the agreement. Fhe-netification-did net mention the -non-presecution agreementwith the LS. Attorneys Offiee— Edwards Declaration at & 16. 41. On July 9, 2008, AUSA [J filed a sworn declaration with the Court in connection with the case (doc. #14). The declaration purported to recount limit parts of the non-prosecution agreement and stated that “these provisions were discussed” with several victims, including Jane Doe #1. Id. at 4. 42. On July 11, 2008, the Court held a hearing on Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2’s Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Rights. During the hearing, the Government conceded that Jane Doe EFTA00206958

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

#1 and Jane Doe #2 were “victims” within the meaning of the Crime Victim’s Rights Act. Tr. at 14-15. EFTA00206959

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

EFTA00206960

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Attachment “I First while Ms had-deseribed—aterm_as_being _part-of the-_plea 49. On April 9, 2009, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 sent to the Court in this case (via the PACER system) a notice of a change of law firm affiliation. Doc. #37. EFTA00206961

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

EFTA00206962

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

” correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein to corroborate their argument . * i i SO AGREED AND STIPULATED TO, THIS DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: EFTA00206963