EFTA00179464¶
Memorandum¶
| Subject | Date |
|---|---|
| Prosecution Memorandum In re Operation Stolen Globe: Request to Issue Subpoena to Cooperating Attorney | October 28, 2009 |
To: Jeffrey Sloman Acting U.S. Attorney¶
From: Assistant U.S. Attorney¶
Acting First Assistant U.S. Attorney¶
Acting Chief Criminal Division¶
Deputy Chief Criminal Division¶
Chief Northern Division¶
This memorandum seeks permission to issue a subpoena to attorney Brad Edwards (“Edwards”) for records relating to the investigation Operation Stolen Globe. Edwards is willing to produce all of these items voluntarily. For liability reasons, his firm prefers that we issue a subpoena. Likewise, I would prefer to proceed by subpoena to maintain the formality and secrecy of the grand jury procedures.¶
Background of the Investigation¶
As I have previously discussed with some of you, this investigation arises from obstruction of the Operation Leap Year investigation. Alfredo Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) was considered a significant witness in that investigation. Rodriguez had been employed by the target of the Operation Leap Year investigation and had worked in the home in Palm Beach where the criminal sexual activity had taken place. Rodriguez admitted seeing underage girls in the home, paying money to them, and delivering flowers to girls at one of the local high schools. Rodriguez was interviewed by the Palm Beach Police Department and was asked to produce documents. Rodriguez turned over some documents. When the case was adopted for federal investigation, he was interviewed again by the FBI in January 2007. He was cooperative with the agents and was not, therefore, subpoenaed to the grand jury.¶
EFTA00179465¶
As you all know, the Operation Leap Year investigation ended with the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. No federal charges were filed against Epstein or any of his co-conspirators. While there were a multitude of reasons for that decision, one sentiment was that federal nexus was not as strong as it normally is because there was no evidence of e-mail contact or interstate travel by victims.¶
Moving forward more than two years to the present day, Brad Edwards is currently representing a few of the victims who were identified by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI during Operation Leap Year.¹ Edwards has filed individual lawsuits against Epstein – some in state court and some in federal court. Other identified victims have also filed suit, and a number of those lawsuits are consolidated in front of Judge Marra in the U.S. District Court. In connection with those federal civil suits, a subpoena was issued to Alfredo Rodriguez to appear for a deposition and to produce documents.² Rodriguez appeared for deposition and produced documents as an unrepresented party on July 29 and August 7, 2009. Edwards was one of the attorneys present who questioned Rodriguez. Edwards reports that Rodriguez was very forthcoming about the criminal sexual activity that was occurring at Epstein’s home.³ After the deposition, Rodriguez sent an email to Brad Edwards asking to speak with him. Rodriguez then called Edwards and told him that he had the “holy grail” of information regarding all of the sexual activity that Epstein had been engaging in. Rodriguez claimed to have a list of more than 500 names of young girls who had been to Epstein’s houses in Palm Beach, New York, Paris, New Mexico, and the Virgin Islands. Rodriguez also claimed to have emails and evidence that the girls had been transported interstate by Epstein. If Rodriguez does have this evidence, it would have been relevant and highly material to the Operation Leap Year grand jury investigation.¶
Edwards asked Rodriguez for the evidence. Rodriguez said that he would give the¶
1It should be noted that Edwards filed suit against the United States on behalf of these victims asserting claims that the Office violated their statutory victims’ rights by not providing them with notice and an opportunity to be heard before entering into the Non-Prosecution Agreement. That case remains open but dormant.¶
$ ^{2} $This subpoena, the deposition transcript, and the documents Rodriguez produced are the bulk of what is sought by the proposed subpoena to Attorney Edwards.¶
$ ^{3} $From the description, it appears that he disclosed far more during the deposition than he did to the Palm Beach Police and the FBI, but I cannot make that determination without reviewing the actual deposition.¶
-2.¶
EFTA00179466¶
evidence to Edwards, but only if Edwards would pay him $50,000 cash. Edwards refused. This was in approximately mid-August 2009. At that time, Edwards called me and presented this to me as a “hypothetical” scenario without disclosing who the witness was. I told him that, if the witness really had withheld that information, it was obstruction of justice and we would want to do an undercover operation to obtain the evidence and prosecute him for obstruction. Edwards said that he would think about it and get back to me, but I never heard any more.¶
On October 22nd, I heard again from Edwards. He disclosed that the witness was Rodriguez, and that he had received several more calls from him. During those calls, which were witnessed by one of the law firm’s private investigators, Rodriguez again offered to provide the evidence to Edwards in exchange for $50,000. Edwards repeatedly advised Rodriguez that it was illegal to buy evidence and tried to convince Rodriguez to turn it over without payment in accordance with the subpoena. Rodriguez reportedly referred to the information as his “insurance policy” and said, “I didn’t turn it over to the police when they asked, or to the FBI, but I will give it to you because you touched my heart during the deposition.” Edwards asked him why Rodriguez hadn’t turned the information over to law enforcement and Rodriguez said that he had worked to compile the information and it was his “property” and he wasn’t going to give it away for nothing.¶
Edwards reported that, during the last conversation, when he told Rodriguez again that he wouldn’t buy the evidence because it was illegal, Rodriguez said that he understood that Edwards wouldn’t pay for it, so he was willing to deal with any “third party” that Edwards wanted him to. Edwards said that he realized that he would never be able to convince Rodriguez to turn the evidence over in accordance with the subpoena, and re-approached law enforcement.¶
FBI agents who were not involved in Operation Leap Year and I met with Edwards, his investigator, and another attorney from their firm and did a debriefing. Today, Edwards made a controlled call to the target and introduced the undercover agent. It is not expected that Edwards will be further involved in the investigation, except to turn over the items that I am seeking in the subpoena.¶
ITEMS CALLED FOR BY THE SUBPOENA¶
The subpoena seeks three items:¶
-
The subpoena duces tecum that was issued to Rodriguez for his deposition.
-
The videotape of the deposition, transcript, and documents produced in
-3¶
EFTA00179467¶
response to the subpoena.¶
- The email correspondence between Edwards and Rodriguez.
The first two items are necessary to determine what was asked for and received and to see whether Rodriguez made statements contrary to what he told federal agents. The email correspondence is needed to see the beginning of the contact between Edwards and Rodriguez and to defeat any claim of “entrapment.”¶
None of the items contain any privileged information. The first item is a subpoena issued on behalf of the U.S. District Court and served by an attorney upon a non-party witness. The second items are a deposition that was attended by a number of attorneys representing parties and our target, who was the witness. There was no attorney-client relationship between any of the persons present at the deposition and no private privileged conversation. The documents produced by Rodriguez also are not privileged because he produced them to attorneys for a number of different parties in response to a lawfully issued subpoena. The third item also is not privileged because it involves correspondence between an attorney and a third party.¶
Edwards has expressed his willingness to produce all of these items and is not asserting any claim of privilege or confidentiality.¶
Conclusion¶
For the foregoing reasons, I recommend the issuance of the attached subpoena.¶
-4-¶