The Epstein Index

Keyboard shortcuts

/
Search the files
j k
Move through a list of results
[ ]
Previous or next document
g g · G
Top or bottom of the page
Esc
Leave a search field or close this box
?
Show this box

Go to a page: g then

h
Index
t
Timeline
p
People
r
Redactions
x
Explore
w
News
l
Legislation
a
About

Record

Draft: efta02765751

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case No.: 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and
[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], individually,

Defendants,

_____/

SEARCHED SERIALIZED
FILED
2010 SEP 22 PM 3:11
CIRCUIT CIVIL / PALMBEACH

STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

Defendant [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], Esq., offers the following specific facts as the undisputed material facts in this case. Each of the following facts is numbered separately and individually to facilitate Epstein's required compliance with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) ("The adverse party shall identify . . . any summary judgment evidence on which the adverse party relies.").

Sexual Abuse of Children By Epstein

    1. Defendant Epstein has a sexual preference for young children. Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, Mar. 17, 2010, at 110 (hereinafter "Epstein Depo.") (Deposition Attachment #1).1
    1. Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted more than forty (40) young girls on numerous

1 When questioned about this subject at his deposition, Epstein invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent rather than make an incriminating admission. Accordingly, [REDACTED] is entitled to the adverse inference against Epstein that, had Epstein answered, the answer would have been unfavorable to him. "[I]t is well-settled that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the consequences by invoking a constitutional privilege – at least not in a civil setting." Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. App. 1993).

occasions between 2002 and 2005 in his mansion in West Palm Beach, Florida. These sexual assaults included vaginal penetration. Epstein abused many of the girls dozens if not hundreds of times. Epstein Depo. at 109 ("Q: How many times have you engaged in oral sex with females under the age of 18?" A: [Invocation of the Fifth Amendment]); Deposition of Jane Doe, September 24, 2009 and continued March 11, 2010, at 527 (minor girl sexually abused at least 17 times by Epstein) (hereinafter "Jane Doe Depo") (Deposition Attachment #2); id. 564-67 (vaginal penetration by Epstein with his finger), 568 (vaginal penetration by Epstein with a massager); Deposition ., ., September 24, 2009, at 73 (hereinafter "L.M. Depo") (Deposition Attachment #3) (describing -the manner in which Epstein abused her beginning when LM was 13 years old, touching her vagina with his fingers and vibrator) at 74, line 12-13 (she was personally molested by Epstein more than 50 times), at 164, line 19-23 and 141, line 12-13 and 605, line 3-6 (describing that in addition to being personally molested by Epstein she was paid $200 per underage girl seventy (70) underage girls - she told hi insisted that she continue to bring hi "E.W. Depo") (Deposition Attachinent #4 ght Epstein and she brought him more than id not want to bring him any more girls and he e girls); Deposition of E.W., May 6, 2010 (hereinafter at 115-116, 131 and 255 (describing Epstein's abuse of her beginning at age 14 when he paid her for touching her vagina, inserting his fingers and using a vibrator and he also paid her $200 for' each other underage female E.W. brought him to molest. She brought him between 20(nd 30 underage females); Deposition of Jane Doe #4, date (hereinafter "Jane Doe #4 \, Depo") (Deposition Attachment #5) at 32-34, and 136 (she describes first being taken to Epstein at 15 years old, "Being fingered by him, having him use a vibrator on [me], grabbing my nipples, smelling my butt, jerking off in front of me, licking my clit, several times.").

  1. At all relevant times has had a good faith basis to conclude and did conclude that Epstein was able to access a large number of underage girls through a pyramid abuse scheme in which he paid underage victims $200-$300 cash for each other underage victim that she brought to him. See Palm Beach Police Incident Report at 87 (hereinafter "Incident Report") (Exhibit "A").3 The Palm Beach Police Incident Report details Epstein's scheme for molesting underage females. Among other things, the Incident Report outlines some of the experiences of other Epstein victual. When S.G, a 14 year old minor at the time, was brought to Epstein's home, she was taken upstairs by a woman she believed to be Epstein's assistant. The woman started to fix up the/thorn, putting covers on the massage table and bringing lotions out. The "assistant" then left the room and told S.G. that Epstein would be up in a second. Epstein walked over to S.G. and, told her to take her clothes off in a stem voice. S.G. states in the report she did not know what to do, as she was the only one there. S.G. took off her shirt, leaving her bra on. Epstein, then in a towel told her to take off everything. S.G. removed \ '7 her pants leaving on her thong panties. Eps;eiathen Instructed S.G to give him a massage. As S.G gave "\ Epstein a massage, Epstein turned around and masturbated. S.G. was so disgusted, she did not say anything; Epstein told her she "hail a really hot body." Id. at 14. In the report, S.G. admitted seeing Jeffrey Epstein's penis and stated she thought Epstein was on steroids because he was a "really built / 7 guy and his wee weer as very tiny." Id at 15.

  2. The eiact number of minor girls who Epstein assaulted is known only to Epstein. However, had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that Epstein's victims were substantially more than forty (40) in number. In addition to the deposition excerpts from two of his many victims above about the number of underage girls brought to Epstein and the Palm Beach

2 In support of all assertions concerning the actions took, what learned in the course of his representation of his clients, good faith beliefs and the foundation for those beliefs, see Affidavit and specifically paragraphs 25 and 25 of that Affidavit.

For clarity, depositions attached to this memorandum will be identified numerically as attachments HI, #2, #3, etc., while exhibits attached to this memorandum will be identified alphabetically as exhibits A, B, C, etc.

incident report, there is overwhelming proof that the number of underage girls molested by Epstein through his scheme was in the hundreds. See Complaint, Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein, (hereinafter Jane Doe 102 complaint) (Exhibit "B"); see also Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, April 14, 2010, at 442, 443, and 444 (Epstein invoking the 5th on questions about his daily abuse and molestation of children) (Deposition Attachment #6).

  1. At all relevant times has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that Epstein and his attorneys knew of the seriousness of the criminal investigation against him and corresponded constantly with the United States Attorney's Office i an attempt to avoid the filing of numerous federal felony offenses, which effort was success Se orrespondence from U.S. Attorney's Office to Epstein (hereinafter "U.S. Attorney's Cofrespo ence") (Composite Exhibit "C) (provided in discovery during the Jane Doe v. Epstein case).

  2. At all relevant times has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that, more specifically, Epstein's attorneys knew of Epstein's scheme to recruit minors for sex and also knew that these minors had avilactions that they could bring against him. In fact, there was much communication between Epstein's attorneys and the United States Prosecutors in a joint attempt to minimize Epstein's civil exposure. For example, on October 3, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Villafaita sent an email (attached hereto as Exhibit "D") to Jay Lefkowitz, counsel for Epstein, with attached proposed letter to special Epstein. The letter reads in pertinent part, regarding handling numerous expected civil claims against

"The undersigned, as counsel for the United States of America and Jeffrey Epstein,. write to you to provide information relevant to your service as a Special in the selection of an attorney to represent several young women who may have civil damages claims against Mr. Epstein. The U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (jointly referred to as the "United States") have conducted an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein regarding his solicitation of minor females in Palm Beach County to engage in prostitution. Mr. Epstein, through his assistants, would recruit underage females to travel to his home in Palm Beach to

engage in lewd conduct in exchange for money. Based upon the investigation, the United States has identified forty (40) young women who can be characterized as victims pursuant to 18 USC 2255. Some of those women went to Mr. Epstein's home only once, some went there as much as 100 times or more. Some of the women's conduct was limited to performing a topless or nude massage while Mr. Epstein masturbated himself. For other women, the conduct escalated to full sexual intercourse. As part of the resolution of the case, Epstein has agreed that he would not contest jurisdiction in the Southern District of Florida for any victim who chose to sue him for damages pursuant to 18 USC 2255. Mr. Epstein agreed to provide an attorney for victims who elected to proceed exclusively pursuant to that section, end agreed to waive any challenge to liability under that section up to an amount agreed to by thei kies. The parties have agreed to submit the selection of an attorney to a Special

  1. At all relevant times has had a good faith b takbelieve and did in fact believe that L.M. was, in fact, a victim of Epstein's criminal abusey i atrt.M. was one of the minor females that the United States Attorney's Office recogniz tim. L.M.'s sworn deposition testimony and the adverse inference drawn from Epste' s N, to testify confirm that Epstein began sexually assaulting L.M. when she was 13 y ontinued to molest her on more than fifty (50) occasions over three (3) years. Epstein,R: epo., ttachment #1, at 17 ("Q: Did you ... ever engage e\ y__ in any sexual conduct with L.M.?" A: finyt>ation of the Fifth Amendment].); see also Epstein Depo., 2 April 14, 2010, Attachment #6, at 456 ("Q LM was an underage female that you first abused when she was 13 years old; is that correct?" A: (Invocation of Fifth Amendment].)

  2. Epsteinwas also given ample opportunity to explain why he engaged in sexual activity with L.M. beginhing when L.M. was 13 years old and why he has molested minors on an everyday basis for years, dud he invoked his 5th amendment right rather than provide explanation. See Epstein Deposition, February 17, 2010, at 11-12, 30-31 (Deposition Attachment # 7).

  3. Epstein also sexually assaulted E.W., beginning when she was 14 years old and did so on numerous occasions. See E.W. Depo., Attachment #4 at 215-216.

  4. Mother of the minor girls Epstein sexually assaulted was Jane Doe; the abuse began

when Jane Doe was 14 years old. Rather than incriminate himself, Epstein invoked the 5th amendment to questions about him digitally penetrating Doe's vagina, using vibrators on her vagina and masturbating and ejaculating in her presence. Epstein Depo., April 14, 2010, Attachment #6, at 420, 464, 468.

  1. When clients L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe were 13 or 14 years old, each was brought to Epstein's home multiple times by another underage victim. Epstein engaged one or more of the following acts with each of the then-minor girls at his mansion:,--receiving a topless or completely nude massage; using a vibrator on her vagina; masturbating in her presence; ejaculating in her presence; touching her breast or buttocks or vagina or the clothes covering her sexual organs; and demanding that she bring him other underage girls. Epstein and, his co-conspirators used the telephone to contact these girls to entice or induce them into going to his mansion for sexual abuse. Epstein also made E.W. perform oral sex on him and was to perform sex acts on (Epstein's livein sex slave) in Epstein's presence. See Plaintiff Jane Doe's Notice Regarding Evidence of Similar Acts of Sexual Assault, filed in Jane Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-cv-80893 (S.D. Ea. 2010), as DE 197, (hereinafter "Rule 413 Notice") (Exhibit "E"); Jane Doe Depo., Attachment #2, at 379-380; L.M. Depo., Attachment #3, at 416;-, W. Depo, Attachment #4, at 205.

  2. At al t evant imes has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that ye snot er of the minor girls Epstein sexually assaulted was C.L. When she was approximately >3.4ears old, C.L. was brought to Epstein's home by another underage victim. While a minor, she was at Epstein's home on multiple occasions. Epstein engaged in one or more of the following acts with her while she was a minor at his house - topless or completely nude massage on Epstein; Epstein used a vibrator on her vagina; Epstein masturbated in her presence; Epstein ejaculated in her presence; Epstein also demanded that she bring him other underage girls. See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit "E"; Incident Report, Exhibit "A."

  3. At all relevant times has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that yet another girl Epstein sexually assault was A.H. When she was approximately 16 years old, she was brought to Epstein's home by another underage victim. While a minor, she was at Epstein's home on multiple occasions. Epstein engaged in one or more of the following acts with her while she was a minor at his house - topless or completely nude massage on Epsteik-Epstein used a vibrator on her vagina; Epstein masturbated in her presence; Epstein eja in her presence; Epstein touched her breast or buttock or vagina or the clothes covering rgans; was made to perform sex acts on Epstein; made to perform sex acts on in Epstein's presence. Epstein also forcibly raped this underage victim, as he held h ea ignin against her will and pumped his penis inside her while she was screaming "No". See. Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit "E"; Incident Report, Exhibit "A", at 41 (specifically discussing the rape):

"[A.H.] remembered that she climaxed and was removing herself from the massage table. [Alf.] asked for a sheet of a r and drew the massage table in the bathroom and where Epstein, and she were. Epstein turned [A.H.] on to her stomach on the massage bed and inserted his penis into her vagina. [A.H.) stated Epstein began to pump his penis in her vagina. [A.H.] became upset over this. She said her head was being held against the bed forcibly, as he continued to pump inside her. She screamed no, and Epstein stopped ...."

"[A.H.] advised there were times that she was so sore when she left Epstein's house. [A.H.) advised she was ripped, torn, in her vagina area. [A.H.) advised she had difficulty'walking to the car after leaving the house because she was so sore."

  1. --Without detailing each fact known about Epstein's abuse of the many underage girls, has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe at all relevant times that Epstein also abused other victims in ways closely similar to those described in the preceding paragraphs. Epstein's additional victims include the following (among many other) young girls: S.G.; A.D.; V.A.; N.R.; J.S.; V.Z.; J.A.; F.E.; M.L.; M.D.; D.D.; and D.N. These girls were between the ages of 13 and 17 when Epstein abused them. See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit E; Deposition of E.W., Deposition Attachment #4.

  2. One of Mr. Epstein's household employees, Mr. Alfredo Rodriguez, saw numerous underage girls coming into Epstein's mansion for purported "massages." See Rodriguez Depo. at 242- 44 (Deposition Attachment #8). Rodriguez was aware that "sex toys" and vibrators were found in Epstein's bedroom after the purported massages. Id. at 223-28. Rodriguez thought Epstein was doing was wrong, given the extreme youth of the girls he saw. Id. at 230-31.c )

  3. Alfredo Rodriguez took a journal from Epstein's complite t / fleeted many of the names of underage females Epstein abused across the country and the world, including locations such as Michigan, California, West Palm Beach, New York, NeS S ) and Paris, France. See Journal (hereinafter "The Journal" or "Holy Grail") (Exhibit " (identifying, among other Epstein Y acquaintances, females that Rodriguez believes7<relinderage under the heading labeled "Massages").

  4. Rodriguez was later charg Ariminal complaint with obstruction of justice in connection with trying to obtain $50,00 civil attorneys pursuing civil sexual assault cases against Epstein as payment for producing the book to the attorneys. See Criminal Complaint at 2, U.S. v. Rodriguez, No. 9: I 0-CR-80015rICAM (S.D. Fla. 2010) (Exhibit "O"). Rodriguez stated he needed money because the jotirnal was his "property" and that he was afraid that Jeffrey Epstein would make him "disappear" unless he had an "insurance policy" (i.e., the journal). Id. at 3. Because of the importance of the information in the journal to the civil cases, Mr. Rodriguez called it "The Holy Grail."

  5. In the "Holy Grail" or "The Journal," among the many names listed (along with the abused girls) are some of the people that Epstein alleges in his Complaint had "no connection whatsoever" with the litigation in this case. See, e.g., Journal, Exhibit F, at 85 (Donald Trump); at 9 (Bill Clinton phone numbers listed under "Doug Bands").

Federal Investigation and Plea Agreement With Epstein

  1. In approximately 2005, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida learned of Epstein's repeated sexual abuse of minor girls. They began a criminal investigation into federal offenses related to his crimes. See U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit A.S .7

  2. At all relevant times has had a good faith basis to thfte and did in fact believe that to avoid the Government learning about his abuse of min stein threatened his employees and demanded that they not cooperate with the governmkt (stein's aggressive witness tampering was so severe that the United States Attorney's Office prepared negotiated plea agreements containing these charges. For example, in a September 18, 20'07, email from AUSA Villafazia to Leflcowitz (attached hereto as Exhibit "H"), she- attached the proposed plea agreement describing Epstein's witness tampering as follows:

"UNITED STATES*.JEFFREY EPSTEIN PLEA PROFFER"

On August 21, 2007, FBI ipeefal Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards traveled to the home ,of Leslie Groff to serve her with a federal grand jury subpoena with an investigation pending in the Southern District of Florida. Ms. Groff works as the personal assistant of the defendant. Ms. Groff began speaking with the agents and then excused herself to go upstairs to check on her sleeping child. While upstairs, Ms. Groff telephoned the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and informed him that the FBI agents were at her home. Mr. Epstein instructed Ms. Groff not to speak with the agents and reprimanded her for allowing them into her home. Mr. Epstein applied pressure to keep Ms. Groff from complying with the grand jury subpoenas that the agents had served upon her. In particular, Mr. Epstein warned Ms. Groff against turning over documents and electronic evidence responsive to the subpoena and pressured her to delay her appearance before the grand jury in the Southern District of Florida. This conversation occurred when Mr. Epstein was aboard his privately owned civilian aircraft in Miami in the Southern District of Florida. His pilot had filed a flight plan showing the parties were about to return to Teterboro, NJ. After the conversation with Ms. Groff, Mr. E stein became concerned that the FBI would try to serve his traveling companion, with a similar grand jury subpoena. In fact, the agents were

preparing to serve with a target letter when the flight landed in Teterboro. Mr. Epstein then redirected his airplane, making the pilot file a new flight plan to travel to the US Virgin Islands instead of the New York City area, thereby keeping the Special Agents from serving the target letter on the flight, the defendant verbally harassed harassing and pressuring her not to cooperate with the grand jury's investigation, thereby hindering and dissuading her from reporting the commission of a violation of federal law to a law enforcement officer namely, Special Agents of the FBI. Epstein also threatened and harassed against cooperating against him as well. During

  1. learned that the Palm Beach police department investigatio ately led to the execution of a search warrant at Epstein's mansion in October 2005. Se Exhibit "A". Incident Report,

  2. C ) learned that at around the same time, the Palm Beath Police Department also began investigating Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls. They also collected evidence of Epstein's involvement with minor girls and his obsession with training sex slaves, including pulling information from Epstein's trash. Their investigation showed that Epstein ordered from Amazon.com on about September 4, 2005, such books as: SMI01: A Realistic Introduction, by Jay Wiseman; SlaveCraft: e- Roadmaps for Erotic Servitude - Priu0iples, ills, and Tools, by Guy Baldwin; and Training with Miss Abernathy: A Workbook for Erotic Slaves and Their Owners, by Christina Abernathy. See Receipt for Sex Slave Books (Exhibit "1").

  3. The P Beach incident reports provided with the names of numerous witnesses that parftapated in Epstein's child molestation criminal enterprise and also provided with some insight into how far-reaching Epstein's power was and how addicted Epstein was to sex with children. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A".

  4. The Palm Beach Police Department also collected Epstein's message pads, which provided other names of people that also knew Epstein's scheme to molest children. See Message Pads (Exhibit "J") (note: the names of underage females have been redacted to protect the anonymity

of the underage sex abuse victims). Those message pads show clear indication that Epstein's staff was frequently working to schedule multiple young girls between the ages of 12 and 16 years old literally every day, often two or three times per day. Id.

  1. In light of all of the information of numerous crimes committed by Epstein, learned that the U.S. Attorney's Office began preparing the filing of federal criminal charges against Epstein. For example, in addition to the witness tampering and money laundering ges the U.S. Attorney's Office prepared an 82-page prosecution memo and a 53-page indi (14; e of Epstein related to his sexual abuse of children. On September 19, 2007, at 12:14 PM, A SA Villafafta wrote to Epstein's counsel, Jay Lefkowitz, "Jay - I hate to have to be firm about this, but we need to wrap this up by Monday. I will not miss my indictment date when this/has drugged on for several weeks already / and then, if things fall apart, be left in a less advantage position than before the negotiations. I have t c g had an 82-page pros memo and 53-page indict c \m*th on the shelf since May to engage in these negotiations. There has to be an endi date, d that date is Monday." These and other communications are within the cones n c ttached as Composite Exhibit "C."

  2. learned that rath r than face the filing of federal felony criminal charges, Epstein (through his attorneys) engaged in plea bargain discussions. As a result of those discussions, on September 24, 2 Epstein signed an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Flo el' the agreement, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to an indictment pending against him itS.15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County charging him with solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution. Epstein also agreed that he would receive a thirty month sentence, including 18 months of jail time and 12 months of community control. In exchange, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed not to pursue any federal charges against Epstein. See Non-Prosecution Agreement (Exhibit "K").

  3. Part of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that Epstein negotiated was a provision in which the federal government agreed not to prosecute Epstein's co-conspirators. The co-conspirators procured minor females to be molested by Epstein. One of the co-conspirators even participated in the sex acts with minors (including E.W.) and Epstein. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A", at 40-42, 49-51; Deposition of Ma April 13, 2010, thereinafter Depo.") at 11 (Deposition attachment #9).

  4. Under the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Epstein was to use b • " S efforts" to enter into his guilty pleas by October 26, 2007. However, learnet pstein violated his agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office to do so and delayed entry of his plea. See Letter from U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta to Lilly Ann Dec. 19 2007 (Exhibit "L").

  5. On January 10, 2008 and again on Ma the FBI advising them that "[tJhis case is current and we request your continued patience w at Composite Exhibit "M". This doc W. and L.M. received letters from jnvestigation. This can be a lengthy process duct a thorough investigation." Letters attached idence that the FBI did not notify E.W. and L.M. that a plea agreement had already been reached drat would block federal prosecution of Epstein. Nor did the FBI notify E.W. and L.M. of any of the parts of the plea agreement. Nor did the FBI or other federal authorities confer wi .W. and L.M. about the plea. See id

  6. extremely -On believed in good faith that criminal prosecution of Epstein was to his clients E.W. and L.M. and that they desired to be consulted by the FBI and/or other representatives of the federal government about the prosecution of Epstein. The letters that they had received around January 10, 2008, suggested that a criminal investigation of Epstein was on-going and that they would be contacted before the federal government reached any final resolution of that investigation. See id.

Agrees to Serve as Legal Counsel for Three Victims of Epstein's Sexual Assaults

  1. In about April 2008, J. , Esq., was a licensed attorney in Florida, practicing as a sole practitioner. As a former prosecutor, he was well versed in civil cases that involved criminal acts, including sexual assaults. Three of the many girls Epstein had abused — L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe — all requested that represent them civilly and secure appropriate monetary damages against Epstein for repeated acts of sexual abuse while they were minor girls. Two of the girls (L.M. and E.W.) also requested that represent them in connection with a concern that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Attorney's Office might 'be arranging a plea bargain for the criminal offenses committed by Epstein without providingfthem the legal rights to which they were entitled (including the right to be notified of plea discussions and the right to confer with prosecutors about any plea arrangement). See Affidavit of.= J. Esq. at ¶1 - 2, ¶4 (hereinafter Affidavit") (Exhibit "N").

  2. On June 13, 2008, attorney agreed to represent E.W.; on July 2, 2008, attorney agreed to represent Jane Doe; and, on July 7, 2008, attorney agreed to represent L.M. in connection with the sexual assaults committed by Epstein and to insure that their rights as victims of crimes were protected in the criminal process on-going against Epstein. Mr. and his three clients executed written retention agreements. See id at ¶2.

  3. In mid June of 2008, contacted AUSA Villafaiia to inform her that he represented-Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. AUSA Villafafia did not advise that a plea agreement had already been negotiated with Epstein's attorneys that would block federal prosecution. To the contrary, AUSA Villafaiia mentioned a possible indictment. AUSA Villafaria did indicate that federal investigators had concrete evidence and information that Epstein had sexually molested many underage minor females, including E.W., LM, and Jane Doe. See id. at ¶4.

  4. also requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office the information that they had collected regarding Epstein's sexual abuse of his clients. However, the U.S. Attorney's Office, declined to provide any such information to It similarly declined to provide any such information to the other attorneys who represented victims of Epstein's sexual assaults. At the very least, this includes the items that were confiscated in the search warrant of Epstein's home, including dildos, vibrators, massage table, oils, and additional message pads. See Prope ipt (Exhibit

  5. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA Villa aiia received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement and learned that the-plea was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. AUSA Villafaila called to, provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. AUSA Villafaila did not tell Attorney Edwardsthat the guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecutio !Avant to the plea agreement. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N", at ¶6.

  6. Under the Crime Vice s' * • is weAct (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, victims of federal >. crimes — including E.W. and L. ntitled to basic rights during any plea bargaining process, including the right to be treated with fairness, the right to confer with prosecutors regarding any plea, and the right to be heard regarding any plea. The process that was followed leading to the nonprosecution of Epstein violated these rights of E.W. and L.M. See Emergency Petn. for Victim's Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights, No. 9:08-CV-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Exhibit "P").

  7. Because of the violation of the CVRA, on July 7, 2008, filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:08-CV-80736, seeking to enforce the rights of E.W. and L.M. That action alleged that the U.S. Attorney's Office had failed to provide E.W. and L.M. the rights to which they were entitled under the Act, including the right to be notified about a plea agreement and to confer with prosecutors regarding it. See id.

  8. On July 11, 2008, took E.W. and L.M. with him to the hearing on the CVRA action. It was only at this hearing that both victims learned for the first time that the plea deal was already done with Epstein and that the criminal case against Epstein had been effectively terminated by the U.S. Attorney's office. See Hearing Transcript, July 11, 2008 (Exhibit "Q").

  9. learned that Jane Doe felt so strongly that the plea bargain was inappropriate that she made her own determination to appear on a television program_ and exercise her First Amendment rights to criticize the unduly lenient plea bargain Epstein received in a criminal case.

  10. The CVRA action that filed was recently administratively closed and filed a Motion to reopen that proceeding. See No. 9:08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.).

Eftwein's Entry of Guilty P eas to SelOffenses

  1. Ultimately, on June 30, 2008, in 84c1 h Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, defendant Epstein, entered pleas solicitation of minors for prostitution ocurement of minors for the purposes of prostitution. See Plea Colloquy (Exhibit "R"). 1(' to various Florida state crimes involving the

  2. As a condition of that plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant, 'Epstein additionally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government acknowledging that approximately thirty-four (34) other young girls could receive payments from him under the federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse, 18 U.S.C. § 2255. As had been agreed months before, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not prosecute Epstein federally for his sexual abuse of these minor girls. See Addendum to Non-Prosecution Agreement (Exhibit "S") (in redacted form to protect the identities of the minors involved).

  3. Because Epstein became a convicted sex offender, he was not to have contact with any of his victims. During the course of his guilty pleas on June 30, 2008, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo ordered Epstein "not to have any contact, direct or indirect" with any victims. She also expressly stated that her no-contact order applied to "all of the victims." Similar orders were entered by the federal court handling some of the civil cases against Epstein. The federal court stated that it "finds it necessary to state clearly that Defendant is under this court's order not ve direct or indirect contact with any plaintiffs . ..." Order, Case No. 9:08-cv-80119 (S. 0 . 008), [DE 238] at 4-5 (emphasis added); see also Order, Case No. 9:08-cv-80893, [DE 193 hasis added).

Files Civil Suits Against 5 in -

  1. had a good faith belief that his clien and t and betrayed by the criminal system wished to prosecute and punish Epstein for Nisn e es against them in whatever avenue :, remained open to them. On August 12, 2008, at the request of his client Jane Doe, Brad filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recove age* for his sexual assault of Jane Doe. See Affidavit, "N" at ¶7. Included in thi p in was a RICO count that explained how Epstein ran a criminal conspiracy to procure young gir s for him to sexually abuse. See Complaint, Jane Doe v. Epstein (Exhibit "T").

  2. On September 11;2008, at the request of his client E.W., Brad filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of E.W. See Complaint, E.W. v. Epstein (Exhibit "U").

  3. On September 11, 2008, at the request of his client L.M.., Brad filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of L.M. See Complaint, L.M. v. Epstein, (Exhibit "V").

  4. Jane Doe's federal complaint indicated that she sought damages of more than $50,000,000.

Listing the amount of damages sought in the complaint was in accord with other civil suits that were filed against Epstein (before any lawsuit filed by ). See Complaint, Jane Doe #4 v. Epstein (Exhibit "W") (filed by Herman and Mermelstein, PA).

  1. At about the same time as filed his three lawsuits against Epstein, other civil attorneys were filing similar lawsuits against Epstein. For example, on or about April 14, 2008 another law firm, Herman and Mermelstein, filed the first civil action against Epstein on behalf of one of its seven clients who were molested by Epstein. The complaints that attorney Herman filed on behalf of his seven clients were similar in tenor and tone to the complaint that Edwards filed on behalf of his three clients. See id.

  2. Over the next year and a half, more than 20 other similar civil actions were filed by various attorneys against Epstein alleging sexual assault of mipor girls. These complaints were also similar in tenor and tone to the complaint that fil alf of his clients. These complaints are all public record and have not been attached, b a ilable in this Court's files and the files of the U.S. District Court for the Southern Districttf Flo a.

  3. In addition to the complaints filed against Epstein in Florida, a female in New York, Ava filed a lawsuit against Ed. in New York making similar allegations - that Epstein paid her for a massage then f? ed her to give him oral sex and molested her in other ways when she was only 16 years old. er was born a male, and in her complaint she alleges that Epstein told her during the "massat ove how young you are. You have a tight butt like a baby". See Jeff Epstein Sued for "Repeated Sexual Assaults" on Teen, New York Post, October 17, 2007, by Dareh Gregorian, link at:

http://www.nvpost.com/p/news/regional/item 44 zl WvLUFH7R1OU tK YGPbP; sessionid=6CA3EBF1

BEF68F5DEI4BFB2CAA5C37E0. See Article attached hereto as Exhibit "X".

  1. three complaints against Epstein contained less detail about sexual abuse than (as one example) a complaint filed by attorney Robert Josephsberg from the law firm of Podhurst Orseck. See Complaint, Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein (Exhibit "B"). As recounted in detail in this Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was 15 years old when Ghislaine Maxwell discovered her and lured her to Epstein's house. Maxwell and Epstein forced her to have sex with both of them and within weeks Maxwell and Epstein were flying her all over the world. According to the Complaint, iane Doe 102 was forced to live as one of Epstein's underage sex slaves for years and was forced to have sex with not only Maxwell and Epstein but also other politicians, businessmen, royalty, academicians, etc. She was even made to watch Epstein have sex with three 12-year-old girls that were sent to him for his birthday by a citizen that is a friend of Epstein's. \ Luckily, Jane Doe 102 escaped to / Australia to get away from Epstein and Maxwell's sexual abuse. _/

  2. learned that in addition t sdlfts that were filed in court against Epstein, at around the same time other attorneys engag p ling settlement discussions with Epstein. Rather than face filed civil suits in these case aid money settlements to more than 15 other women who had sexually abused while they were minors. See articles regarding settlements attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "Y."

EDS 's Obst uction of Normal Discovery and Attacks on His Victims

  1. Once filed his civil complaints for his three clients, he began the normal \ process of discovery for cases such as these. He sent standard discovery requests to Epstein about his sexual abuse of the minor girls, including requests for admissions, request for production, and interrogatories. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N", at ¶¶11-19 and 25.

Rather than answer any substantive questions about his sexual abuse and his conspiracy for procuring minor girls for him to abuse, Epstein invoked his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. An

example of Epstein's refusal to answer is attached as Composite Exhibit "1" (original discovery propounded to Epstein and his responses invoking 5th amendment).

  1. During the discovery phase of the civil cases filed against Epstein, Epstein's deposition was taken at least five times. During all of those depositions, Epstein refused to answer any substantive questions about his sexual abuse of minor girls. See, e.g., Deposition Attachments 1, 6 and 7.

  2. During these depositions, Epstein further attempted to obstruct legitimate questioning by inserting a variety of irrelevant information about his case. As one of innumerable examples, on March 8, 2010, Mr. Horowitz, representing seven victims, Jane Doe's 2-8, asked, "Q: in 2004, did you rub Jane Doe 3's vagina? A: Excuse me. I'd like to answer that question, as I would like to answer mostly every question you've asked me here today; however, upon advice of counsel, I cannot answer that question. They've advised me I must Sixth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Rights against self c e, against--under the Constitution. And though your partner, Jeffrey Herman, was di ter partner sits in jail for fabricating cases of a sexual nature fleecing unsuspecting Florida investors and others out of Onions of dollars for cases of a sexual nature with--I'd like to answer your questions; however if 1--I'm told that if I do so, I risk losing my counsel's representation; therefore I must accept their advice." Epstein deposition, March 8, 2010, at 106 (Deposition attachment #10). filing this lawsuit [a statement that was untrue], Mr.

  3. When had the opportunity to take Epstein's deposition, he only asked reasonable questions, all of which related to the merits of the cases against Epstein. All depositions of Epstein in which Mr. participated on behalf of his clients are attached to this motion. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶11 and Deposition attachments #1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Cf. with Deposition of Epstein taken by an attorney representing BB (one in which was not

http://www.voutube.com/watch?v=YCNiY1tW-r0

  1. efforts to obtain information about Epstein's organization for procuring young girls was also blocked because Epstein's co-conspirators took the Fifth. Deposition of March 24, 2010 (hereinafter Depo.") (Deposition attachment #14); Deposition of April 13, 2010, (Deposition attachment #9); Deposition of MOIlla March 15, 2010 (hereinafter "M Depo.") (Deposition attachment #1(5)., ch of these coconspirators invoked their respective rights against self-incrimination a.? ha all relevant questions, and the depositions have been attached.

  2. At all relevant times has had a go f asis to believe and did in fact IASS, identified as a defendant in at least one of the complaints against Epstein for her rol 4 4sng i girls to Epstein's mansion to be abused. At the deposition, she was represented by ce 'nhart. She invoked the Fifth on all substantive believe was an employee of Epstein's questions regarding her role in arrangi prTpinor girls to come to Epstein's mansion to be sexually abused. Reinhart had previous! y been b ah Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern of Florida when Epstein was being investigated criminally by Reinhart's office. Reinhart left the United States Attorney's Office and was immediately hired by Epstein to repreienttpsteln's pilots and certain co-conspirators during the civil cases against Epstein. See davit, Exhibit "N" at 911.

  3. also had other lines of legitimate discovery blocked through the efforts of Epstein and others. For example, learned through deposition that Ghislaine Maxwell was involved in managing Epstein's affairs and companies. See deposition of Epstein's house manager Janusz Banziak, February 16, 2010 at page 14, lines 20-23 (Deposition Attachment #16); See

See Deposition of Rodriguez, Deposition attachment # 8 at 6 60. Alfredo Rodriguez testified that Maxwell took photos of girls without the girls' knowledge, kept the images on her computer, knew the names of a undetage girls and their respective phone numbers and other underage victims were molest n and Maxwell together. and 236.

deposition of Epstein's housekeeper October 20, 2009, page 9, lines 17-25 (Deposition Attachment #17); See deposition of Epstein's pilot Larry Eugene a October 6, 2009, page 102-103 (Deposition Attachment #18); See deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez, August 7, 2009, page 302-306 and 348 (Deposition Attachment #8); See also Prince Andrew's Friend, Ghislaine Maxwell, Some Underage Girls and A Very Disturbing Story, September 23, 2007 by Wendy Leigh, link at http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=1895OHANNA Exhibit "AA".

  1. In reasonable reliance on this and other i o tion, served Maxwell for deposition in 2009. See Deposition Notice attachertas hibit "BB." Maxwell was represented by Brett Jaffe of the New York firm of and Gresser, and understood that her attorney was paid for (directly or indirectly) by Epstein. .She was reluctant to give her deposition, and tried di to work with her attorney to take Iteposition on terms that would be acceptable to both sides. The result was the attached confi 'ality agreement, under which Maxwell agreed to drop any objections to the deposition, attached ereto as Exhibit "CC." Maxwell, however, contrived to avoid the deposition. On June 29, 2010, one day before was to fly to NY to take Maxwell's deposition, her attorney informed that Maxwell's mother was deathly ill and Maxwell was consequently flying to England with no intention of returning to the United States. Despite that assertion, Ghislaine Maxwell was in fact in the country on July 31, 2010, as she attended the wedding of Chelsea Clinton (former President Clinton's daughter) and was captured in a photograph taken for OK magazine. Photos from Issue 809 of the publication See US Weekly dated August 16, 2010 are attached hereto as

Exhibit "DD" and Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶12.

  1. Maxwell is not the only important witness to lie to avoid deposition by Upon review of the message pads that were taken from Epstein's home in the police trash pulls, see Exhibit "J" supra, many were from Jean Luc Brunel, a citizen and one of Epstein's closest pals. He left messages for Epstein. One dated 4/1/05 said, "He has a teacher for you to teach you how to speak Russian. She is 2x8 years old, not blonde. Lessons are free and you can have your 14 today if you call." See Messages taken from Jean Luc Brunel are attached hereto as ExhibitYEE." In light of these circumstances of the case, this message reasonably suggested to a that Brunel might have been procuring two eight-year-old girls for Epstein to sexually abuse. According to widely circulated press reports reviewed by Brunel is in his sixties and has a reputation throughout the world (and especially in the modeling industry) as a cocaine addict that has for years molested children through modeling agencies while acting as their agent —,conduct that has been the subject of critical reports, books, several news articles, and a 60 IsA, inutes documentary on Brunel's sexual exploitation of --- underage models. See http://bradmillashero.blogsoot.com/2010/08/women-are-objects.html, attached hereto as Exhibit "FF."

  2. learned that Brunel is also someone that visited Epstein on approximately 67 occasions while Epstein was in jail. See Epstein's jail visitor log attached as Exhibit "GO."

  3. learned that Brunel currently runs the modeling agency MC2, a company for which Epstein provides financial support. See Message Pad's attached as Exhibit "J" supra and Sworn Statement of MC2 employee Maritza Vasquez, June 15, 2010, "Maritza Vasquez Sworn Statement" attached at Exhibit "HH" at 1-16.

  4. Employees of MC2 told that Epstein's numerous condos at 301 East 66 Street in New York were used to house young models. was told that MC2 modeling agency,

affiliated with Epstein and Brunel brought underage girls from all over the world, promising them modeling contracts. Epstein and Brunel would then obtain a visa for these girls, then would charge the underage girls rent, presumably to live as underage prostitutes in the condos. See Maritza Vasquez Sworn Statement, Exhibit "HH" at 7-10, 12-15, 29-30, 39-41, 59-60 and 62-67.

  1. In view of this information suggesting Brunel could provide significant evidence of Epstein's trafficking in young girls for sexual abuse, had Brunel served-fitzNew York for /m) deposition. See Notice of Deposition of Jean Luc Brunel attached hereto as Exhibit "II." Before the deposition took place, Brunel's attorney (Tama Kudman of West Palm Beach) contacted to delay the deposition date. Eventually Kudman informed in January 2009 that Brunel had left the country and was back in France with no plans to return. This information was untrue; Brunel was actually staying with Epstein in West Palm Beach. See Banasiak deposition, deposition attachment #16 at 154-160 and 172-175; see also pages from Epstein's probation file evidencing Jean Luc Brunel (JLB) staying at his house during that relevant period of time attached Exhibit "1.1". As a result, filed a Motion for Contempt, attached hereto as Exhibit "KK" (Because Epstein settled this case, the motion was never ruled upon.)

  2. was also informed that Epstein paid for not only Brunel's representation during the civil process but also paid for legal representation for (Epstein's executive assistant and procurer of girls for him to abuse), Larry Visoski (Epstein's personal pilot), Dave Rogers (Epstein's personal pilot), Larry (Epstein's personal pilot), (Epstein's housekeeper), (Epstein's live-in sex slave), Ghislaine Maxwell (manager of Epstein's affairs and businesses), Mark Epstein (Epstein's brother), and Janusz Banasiak (Epstein's house manager) It was nearly impossible to take a deposition of someone that would have helpful information that was not represented by an attorney paid for by Epstein. See Affidavit,

Exhibit "N" at ¶11.

  1. While Epstein and others were preventing any legitimate discovery into his sexual abuse of minor girls, at the same time he was engaging (through his attorneys) in brutal questioning of the girls who had filed civil suits against him, questioning so savage that it made local headlines. See Jane Musgrave, Victims Seeking Sex offender's Millions See Painful Pasts Used Against Them, Palm Beach Post News, Jan. 23, 2010, available at httn://www.palmbeachoost.com/neivs4me/victimsseekinn-sex-offenders-millions-see-painful-pasts-192988.html attached hereto "LL."

Pursues Other Lines of Discove

  1. Because of Epstein's thwarting of discovery and attacks on clients, was forced to pursue other avenues of discovery. Edwards only pursued legitimate discovery designed to further the cases filed against Epstein. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶11.

  2. notified Epstein's attorneys of his intent to take Bill Clinton's deposition. possessed a legitimate basis for doing so: (a) Clinton was friends with Ghislaine Maxwell / -- who was Epstein's longtime companion and helped to run Epstein's companies, kept images of naked underage children on her computer, helped to recruit underage children for Epstein, engaged in lesbian sex with underage females that she procured for Epstein, and photographed underage females in sexually explicit poses and kept child pornography on her computer; (b) it was national news when Clinton traveled With Epstein aboard Epstein's private plane to Africa and the news articles classified Clinton as Epstein's friend. (c) the complaint filed on behalf of Jane Doe No. 102 stated generally that she was required by Epstein to be sexually exploited by not only Epstein but also Epstein's "adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances" — categories Clinton and acquaintances of Clinton fall into. The flight logs showed Clinton traveling on Epstein's plane on numerous occasions between 2002 and 2005. See

Flight logs attached hereto as Exhibit "MM." Clinton traveled on many of those flights with Ghislaine Maxwell, and - all employees and/or co-conspirators of Epstein's that were closely connected to Epstein's child exploitation and sexual abuse. The documents clearly show that Clinton frequently flew with Epstein aboard his plane, then suddenly stopped - raising the suspicion that the friendship abruptly ended, perhaps because of events related to Epstein's sexual abuse of children. Epstein's personal phone directory from his computer contains e-mail'addresses for Clinton along with 21 phone numbers for him, including those for his assistant (Doug Band), his schedulers, and what appear to be Clinton's personal numbers. This information -certainly leads one to believe that Clinton might well be a source of relevant information and efforts to obtain discovery from him were reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evide ,txhibits "B", "F" "AA", "DD", and "MM" and Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 115.ze14/\

  1. J. a, Esq., provided notice that he intended to take the deposition of Donald Trump. possessed a legiti ate basis for doing so: (a) The message pads confiscated from Epstein's home indicated that Triimp \ lied Epstein's West Palm Beach mansion on several occasions during the time period most relevant to my clients' complaints; (b) Trump was quoted in a Vanity Fair article about Epstein as saying "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," "He's a lot of fun to bewith. kis even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the, younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life." Jeffrey Epstein: International-Moneyman of Mystery; He's pals with a passel of Nobel Prize—winning scientists, CEOs like Leslie Wexner of the Limited, socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, even Donald Trump. But it wasn't until he flew Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, and Chris Tucker to Africa on his private Boeing 727 that the world began to wonder who he is. By Landon Jr. (See article attached hereto as Exhibit "NN") (c) Trump allegedly banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein

sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club; (d) Jane Doe No. 102's complaint alleged that Jane Doe 102 was initially approached at Trump's Maralago by Ghislaine Maxwell and recruited to be Maxwell and Epstein's underage sex slave; (e) Mark Epstein (Jeffrrey Epstein's brother) testified that Trump flew on Jeffrey Epstein's plane with him (the same plane that Jane Doe 102 alleged was used to have sex with underage girls); (0 Trump had been to Epstein's home in Palm Beach; (g) Epstein's phone directory from his computer contains 14 phone numbers for Donald Trump, including emergency numbers, car numbers, and numbers to Trump's security guard and houseman. Based on this information, reasonably believed that Trump might have relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly provided notice of a possible deposition. See deposition of Mark Epstein, September 21, 2009, at 48-50 (Deposition Attachment #19); See Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein, Exhibit "B"; Exhibit "F"; "Exhibit"J"; ' SI154 Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 113.

  1. provided notice t 1S ended to depose Alan Dershowitz. t possessed a legitimate basis for doing t ) rshowitz is believed to have been friends with Epstein for many years; (b) in one news article Dershowitz comments that, "I'm on my 20th book... The only person outside of my imme arnily that I send drafts to is Jeffrey" The Talented Mr. Epstein, By Vicky on ..." Janu 2005 n Published Work, Vanity Fair (See article attached as Exhibit "OO"); ,.i (c) Epstein's ho Alfredo Rodriguez testified that Dershowitz stayed at Epstein's house during the years v stein was assaulting minor females on a daily basis; (d) Rodriguez testified that Dershowitz was at Epstein's house at times when underage females where there being molested by Epstein (see Alfredo Rodriguez deposition at 278-280, 385, 426-427); (e) Dershowitz reportedly assisted in attempting to persuade the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office that because the underage females alleged to have been victims of Epstein's abuse lacked credibility and could not be believed

that they were at Epstein's house, when Dershowitz himself was an eyewitness to their presence at the house; (f) Jane Doe No. 102 stated generally that Epstein forced her to be sexually exploited by not only Epstein but also Epstein's "adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances" — categories that Dershowitz and acquaintances of Dershowitz fall into; (g) during the years 2002-2005 Alan Dershowitz was on Epstein's plane on several occasions according to the flight logs produced by EpsteisVs pilot and information (described above) suggested that sexual assaults may have takmplace won the plane; (h) ( \J7 Epstein donated $30 Million one year to the university at which Dershowitz teaches. Based on this information, had a reasonable basis to believe that Dershowitz might have relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and <accordingly provided notice of a possible deposition. See Dershowitz letters to the State AttorneY's office attached as Exhibit "PP"; Deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez at 278-280; Flight Logs gxhibit "MM"; Exhibits "B" and "OO"; and Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶14.

  1. Epstein's complaint allege,-that-_ provided notice that he wished to take the deposition of Tommy Mattola. t as rtion is untrue. Mr. Mattola's deposition was set by the law firm of Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart and Shipley. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶16.

  2. gave notice that he intended to take David Copperfield's deposition. possessed a legitimate basis for doing so. Epstein's housekeeper and one of the only witnesses who f did not appear for deposition with an Epstein bought attorney, Alfredo Rodriguez, testified that David Copperfield was a guest at Epstein's house on several occasions. His name also appears frequently in the message pads confiscated from Epstein's house. It has been publicly reported that Copperfield himself has had allegations of sexual misconduct made against him by women claiming he sexually abused them, and one of Epstein's sexual assault victims also alleged that Copperfield had touched her

in an improper sexual way while she was at Epstein's house. Mr. Copperfield likely has relevant information and deposition was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 117.

  1. Epstein also takes issue with identifying Bill as a possible witness. was properly identified as a possible witness because Epstein's personal pilot testified to joining Epstein at Epstein's New Mexico Ranch. There was informal' dicating that Epstein had young girls at his ranch which, given the circumstances of the c ed the reasonable inference he was sexually abusing these girls as he had abused gi s t Palm Beach and elsewhere. had also returned campaign donations we iven to him by Epstein, indicating that he believed that there was something about et th which he did not want to be associated. was not called to testify nor wash8lcv subpoenaed to testify. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 118.

  2. learned of allegati that stein engaged in sexual abuse of minors on his private aircraft. See Jane Doe 102 Cttjpjaip -Exhibit "B." Accordingly, pursued discovery to confirm these allegations.

  3. Discovery of the pilot and flight logs was proper in the cases brought by against Epstein. JaneDoe filed a federal RICO claim against Epstein that was an active claim through much of the litigation. The RICO claim alleged that Epstein ran an expansive criminal enterprise that involved and depended upon his plane travel. Although Judge Marra dismissed the RICO claim at some point in the federal litigation, the legal team representing MI' clients intended to pursue an appeal of that dismissal. Moreover, all of the subjects mentioned in the RICO claim remained relevant to other aspects of Jane Doe's claims against Epstein, including in particular her claim for punitive damages. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 119.

  4. Discovery of the pilot and flight logs was also proper in the cases brought by against Epstein because of the need to obtain evidence of a federal nexus. client Jane Doe was proceeding to trial on a federal claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 is a federal statute which (unlike relevant state statutes) established a minimum level of recovery for victims of the violation of its provisions. Proceeding under the statute, however, required a "federal nexus" to the sexual assaults. Jane Doe had two grounds on which to argue that such a nexus existed tc, i her abuse by Epstein: first, his use of telephone to arrange for girls to be abused; and, second, his travel on planes in interstate commerce. During the course of the litigation, anticipated that'Epstein would argue that Jane Doe's proof of the federal nexus was inadequate. These fears were realized when Epstein filed a summary judgment motion raising this argument. In response, the other attorneys and representing Jane Doe used the flight log evidence to respond to Epstein's summary judgment motion, explaining that the flight logs demonstrated that Epstein had traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of facilitating his sexual assaults. Because Epstein chose to settle the case before trial, Judge Marra did not rule on the summary judgment motion.

  5. had further reason to believe and did in fact believe that the pilot and flight logs might contain relevant evidence for the cases against Epstein. Jane Doe No. I 02's complaint outlined Epstein's daily sexual exploitation and abuse of underage minors as young as 12 years old and alleged that Epstetn's plane was used to transport underage females to be sexually abused by him and his friends.--TIte_flight - logs accordingly were a potential source of information about either additional girls who were victims of Epstein's abuse or friends of Epstein who may have witnessed or even participated in the abuse. Based on this information, reasonably pursued the flight logs in discovery.

  6. In the fall of 2009, Epstein gave a recorded interview to Rush, a reporter with

the New York Daily News about pending legal proceedings. In that interview, Epstein demonstrated an utter lack of remorse for his crimes (but indirectly admitted his crimes) by stating:

  • People do not like it when people make good and that was one reason he (Epstein) was being targeted by civil suits filed by young girls in Florida;
  • He (Epstein) had done nothing wrong;
  • He (Epstein) had gone to jail in Florida for soliciting prostitution for no reason;
  • If the same thing (i.e., sexual abuse of minor girls) had happened in New York, he (Epstein) would have received only a $200 fine;
  • J. was the one causing all of Epstein's problems (i.e., the civil suits brought by Jane Doe and other girls);
  • L.M. came to him as a prostitute and a drug than Epstein pursuing her);
  • All the girls suing him are only trying
  • The only thing he might have Ole Sizpng was to maybe cross the line a little too closely; ticket; e to Epstein for sex, rather
  • He (Epstein) was very upset that had subpoenaed Ghisline Maxwell, that she was a good person that did nothing wrong (i.e., had done nothing wrong even though she helped procure young girls to satisfy Epstein's sexual desires);
  • With regard to Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein, which involved an allegation that Epstein had repeatedly sexually abused a 15-year-old girl, forced her to have sex with his friends, and flew her on his private plane nationally and internationally for the purposes of sexually molesting and abusing her, he (Epstein) flippantly said that the case was dismissed, indicating that the allegations were ridiculous and untrue.

See Affidavit of Michael J. Fisten attached hereto as Exhibit "QQ."

  1. The Rush interview also demonstrated perjury (a federal crime) on the part of Epstein.

Epstein lied about not knowing Rush. See Epstein Deposition, February 17, 2010, taken in L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein, case 50-2008-CA-028051, page 154, line 4 through 155 line 9, (Deposition attachment #7), wherein Jeffrey Epstein clearly impresses that he does not recognize Rush from the New York Daily News. This impression was given despite the fact that he gave a lengthy

personal interview about details of the case that was tape recorded with Rush.

Epstein's Harassment of Witnesses Against Him

  1. At all relevant times has a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that Epstein engaged in threatening witnesses. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A" at p. 82, U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "C" - Indictments drafted by Federal Government against Epstein; and Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶I 1.

  2. Despite three no contact orders entered against Epstein (see Exhibit C, supra), learned that Epstein continued to harass his victims. For example, Jane Doe had a trial set for her civil case against him on July 19, 2010. As that trial date approached, defendant Epstein intimidated her in violation of the judicial no-contact orders. On July I, 2010, he had a "private investigator" tail Jane Doe — following her every move, stopping when she stopped, driving when she drove, refusing to pass when she pulled over. When Jane Doe ultimately drove to her home, the "private investigator" then parked in his car approximately 25 feet from Jane Doe house and flashed his high beam lights intermittently into the home. Even more threateningly, at about 10:30 p.m., when Jane Doe fled her home in the company of a retired police officer employed by Jane Doe's counsel, the "private investigator" attempted to follow Jane Doe despite a request not to do so. The retired officer successfully took evasive action and placed Jane Doe in a secure, undisclosed location that night. Other harassing actions against Jane Doe also followed. See Motion for Contempt filed by in Jane Doe-wee detailing the event, including Fisten Affidavit attached to Motion, Composite Exhibit "RR."

Epstein Settlement of Civil Claims Against Him for Sexual Abuse of Children

  1. The civil cases filed against Epstein on behalf of L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe were reasonably perceived by to be very strong cases. Because Epstein had sexually

assaulted these girls, he had committed several serious torts against them and would be liable to them for appropriate damages. See Preceding Undisputed Facts. Because of the outrageousness of Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls, reasonably expected that Epstein would also be liable for punitive damages to the girls. Because could show that Epstein had molested children for years and designed a complex premeditated scheme to procure different minors everyday to satisfy his addiction to sex with minors, the punitive damages would have to be sufficient to m from this illegal conduct that he had engaged in daily for years. Epstein was and is a bi . See Complaint, 149 (referring to "Palm Beach Billionaire"); see also Epstein Depositi 17, 2010, at 172- 176 (Deposition Attachment #7) (taking the Fifth when as w ethe.1r he is a billionaire). Accordingly, reasonably believed the punitive gat would have to be awarded against Epstein would have been substantial enou \ him severely enough for his past conduct as well as deter him from repeating his gBe g sln the future. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 119.

  1. On July 6, 2010, rather than face trial for the civil suits that had been filed against him by L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe, defendant Epstein settled the cases against him. The terms of the settlement are confidential. The settlement amounts are highly probative in the instant action as Epstein bases his claims that was involved in the Ponzi scheme on Epstein's inability to settle the L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe cases for "minimal value". His continued inability to settle the claims for "minimal value" after the Ponzi scheme was uncovered would be highly probative in discrediting any causal relationship between the Ponzi scheme and settlement negotiations. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 121.

Non-Involvement in Fraud by Scott Rothstein

  1. From in or about 2005, through in or about November 2009, Scott Rothstein appears to

have run a giant Ponzi scheme at his law firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler P.A. ("RRA"). This Ponzi scheme involved Rothstein falsely informing investors that settlement agreements had been reached with putative defendants based upon claims of sexual harassment and/or whistle-blower actions. Rothstein falsely informed the investors that the potential settlement agreements were available for purchase. Plea Agreement at 2, United States v. Scott W. Rothstein, No. 9-60331-CR-COHN (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2010) attached hereto as Exhibit "SS."

  1. It has been alleged that among other cases that Rothstein used to lure investors into his Ponzi scheme were the cases against Epstein that were being handled by J. Esq. had no knowledge of the fraud or any such use of the Epstein cases. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶9.

  2. , Esq., joined RRA in about April 2009 and left RRA in November 2009 — a period of less than one year. would not have joined RRA had he been aware that Scott Rothstein was running a giant Ponzi scheme at, the firm. left RRA shortly after learning of Rothstein's fraudulent scheme. Id. at 18.

  3. At no time prior to the public disclosure of Rothstein's Ponzi scheme did know or have reason to believe that Rothstein was using legitimate claims that was prosecuting against Epstein for any fraudulent or otherwise illegitimate purpose. Id. at ¶20.

  4. never substantively discussed the merits of any of his three cases against Epstein with Rothstein. See Deposition of J. taken March 23, 2010, at 110-16. (hereinafter "Edwards Depo") (Deposition Attachment #22).

  5. On July 20, 2010, received a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida — the office responsible for prosecuting Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. The letter indicated that law enforcement agencies had determined that was "a victim (or potential victim)" of Scott Rothstein's federal crimes. The letter informed of his rights as a victim of Rothstein's fraud and promised to keep informed about subsequent developments in Rothstein's prosecution. See Letter attached hereto as Exhibit "TT."

  6. Jeffrey Epstein filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against Esq., raising allegations that and others were involved in the wrongdoing of Scott Rothstein. After investigating the claim, the Florida Bar dismissed this complaint. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶23.

Epstein Takes the Filth When Asked Substantive Questions About HistIaims Against

  1. On March 17, 2010, defendant Epstein was depos Sitigilawsuit against Rather than answer substantive questions about his laws At is,' ) E repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege. See Epstein Depo. taken 3/17/1 , litc, tcon Attachment #1.

  2. In his deposition, Epstein took the e Cher than answer the question: "Specifically what are the allegations against you which d Mr. ginned up?" Id at 34.

    1. In his deposition, Eps the Fifth rather than name people in California that had tried to depose to increase t e settlement value of the civil suit he was handling. Id. at

  4. In his, deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Do you know former President Clinton personally." Id.

97.,==hthis deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Are you now telling us that there were claims against you that were fabricated by Mr. Id at 39.

  1. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question, "Well, which of Mr. cases do you contend were fabricated." Id

  2. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "What is the

actual value that you contend the claim of E.W. against you has?" Id. at 45.

  1. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer a question about the actual value of the claim of L.M. and Jane Doe against him. Id.

  2. In his deposition, taken prior to the settlement of clients claims against Epstein, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Is there any pending claim against you which you contend is fabricated?" Id. at 71.

  3. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer th 0 S n: "Did you ever have damaging evidence in your garbage?" Id. at 74.

  4. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than ans; - the question: "Did sexual assaults ever take place on a private airplane on which you were ,a passenger?" Id. at 88.

  5. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Does a flight log kept for a private jet used by you contain 4(s heNes ., of celebrities, dignitaries or international figures?" Id. at 89.

  6. In his deposition, Eps n AC' tair. he Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?" Id. at 89.

  7. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have you ever socialized with Man Dersbowitz in the presence of females under the age of 18." Id. at 90.

  8. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have you ever socialized_with Mr. Mottola in the presence of females under the age of 18?" Id. at 91-92.

N . 108. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Did you ever socialize with David Copperfield in the presence of females under the age of 18?" Id. at

  1. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have you ever socialized with Mr. [Governor of New Mexico and formerly U.S. Representative and Ambassador to the United Nations] in the presence of females under the age of 18." Id at 94.

  2. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have you ever sexually abused children?" Id. at 95.

  3. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Did you have staff members that assisted you in scheduling appointments with underage females; that is, females under the age of 18." Id. at 97-98. 434/...c

  4. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the 0 cc, : "On how many occasions did you solicit prostitution." Id at 102.

  5. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer- e question: "How many minors have you procured for prostitution?" Id at 104.

  6. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have you ever coerced, induced or enticed any minor to engage in any sexual act with you?" Id at 107.

  7. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "How many times have you engaged in fondling underage females?" Id at 108.

  8. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "How many times have you engaged in oral sex with females under the age of 18?" Id at 110.

  9. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Do you have a personal sexual preference for children?" Id at 111-12.

118.---In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Your Complaint at page 27, paragraph 49, says that `RRA and the litigation team took an emotionally driven set of facts involving alleged innocent, unsuspecting, underage females and a Palm Beach billionaire, and sought to turn it into a goldmine,' end of quote. Who is the Palm Beach billionaire referred to in that sentence?" Id at 112-13.

  1. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Who are the people who are authorized to make payment [to your lawyers) on your behalf?" Id. at 120.

  2. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Is there anything in L.M.'s Complaint that was filed against you in September of 2008 which you contend to be false?" Id. at 128.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

D I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September pta, 2010 a copy of the foregoing has been served via U.S. Mail and email transmittal to all those on the attached service Iiitk

Jack Scarola Searcy, Penne, Barnhart & Shipley 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach, FL 33409 (561) 68

(561 (f ) VFlori No.: 169440

13y:

SERVICE LIST

E. Knight, Esq. L. Ackerman, Esq. BURNETT P.A. 901 Point West 777 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger et al. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Marc S. Nurik, Esq. Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik One E. Broward Blvd., Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

sr, Jr. Jaffe, Weissing, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

+o

Go

Retrieved from https://epstein-index.org/documents/source-drafts-550faf4f1b5e1c701a2556a3fa3c9cbf389d452de2ee8279707eed7b85d454fe/.