1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 2Y) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. x APPEARANCES: WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: For Jane Doe TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION¶
| I | ||
|---|---|---|
| I | ||
| I | ||
| I | ||
| I | ||
| 8 | FOR THE DEFENDANT: | ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. |
| MICHAEL BURMAN, ESQ. | ||
| 9 | Burman Critton, etc. | |
| 515 North Flagler Street | ||
| 10 | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 | |
| 11 | ||
| JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. | ||
| 12 | Atterbury Goldberger Weiss | |
| 250 Australian Avenue South | ||
| 13 | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 | |
| 14 | ||
| 15 | Assistant U.S. Attorney | |
| 500 East Broward Boulevard | ||
| 16 | Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 | |
| For U.S.A. | ||
| 17 | ||
| MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ESQ. | ||
| 18 | 20 Park Plaza | |
| Boston MA 02116 | ||
| 19 | (Via telephone) | |
| 20 | JAY LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. (Via telephone) | |
| 21 | ||
| REPORTED BY: | LARRY HERR, RPR-RMR-FCRR-AE | |
| 22 | Official United States Court Reporter | |
| Federally Certified Realtime Reporter | ||
| 23 | 400 North Miami Avenue, Room 8N09 | |
| Miami, FL 33128 | ||
| 24 | ||
| 25 | ||
¶
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION¶
Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 4 of 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Defense? MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, Robert Critton on behalf of Mr. Epstein, and my partner, Michael Burman. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. GOLDBERGER: Good morning, Your Honor. Jack Goldberger on behalf of Mr. Epstein. THE COURT: I see we have some representatives from the United States Attorney's Office here. MS. : Good morning, Your Honor. for the U.S. Attorney's office. THE COURT: Good morning. Who else do we have on the phone? MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, we have two members of the defense team are on the phone, also. THE COURT: Who do we have on the phone? MR. WEINBERG: Martin Weinberg. Good morning, Your Honor. MR. LEFKOWITZ: Jay Lefkowitz. Good morning, Your Honor.¶
20 THE COURT: Good morning.
¶
21 22 23 24 25 I scheduled this hearing for very limited issues which, as you all know, there's been a motion by Mr. Epstein to stay the civil proceedings against him. The one issue I have concern about is Mr. Epstein's contention or assertion that by defending against the allegations in the civil proceedings, he¶
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION¶
| Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM | Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 5 of 51 Document 180 |
|---|---|
| 1 | may expose himself to an allegation by the United States in the |
| 2 | non-prosecution agreement that he's violated that agreement and |
| 3 | therefore would subject himself to potential federal charges. |
| 4 | I had asked for some briefing on this. I asked the |
| 5 | United States to present its position to me. And I received |
| 6 | the Government's written response, which I frankly didn't find |
| 7 | very helpful. And I still am not sure I understand what the |
| 8 | Government's position is on it. |
| 9 | So first let me hear from Mr. Epstein's attorneys as |
| 10 | to what do you believe the concern is. I don't believe the |
| 11 | non-prosecution agreement has ever been filed in this Court; am |
| 12 | I correct? |
| 13 | MR. CRITTON: To my knowledge, Your Honor, it has not. |
| 14 | THE COURT: So I don't believe I've ever seen the |
| 15 | entire agreement. I've seen portions of it. |
| 16 | Your Honor, I believe that it was filed MR. : |
| 17 | under Jane Doe 1 and 2 vs. United States of America, case under |
| 18 | seal in your court. |
| 19 | THE COURT: Okay. |
| 20 | MR. In a separate case. : |
| 21 | THE COURT: In that case, okay. Was it actually filed |
| 22 | in that case? |
| 23 | MR. I filed it under seal. : |
| 24 | THE COURT: In any event, what's Mr. Epstein's concern |
| 25 | about if you defend the civil actions, you're going to expose |
| TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION |
| Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM | Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 6 of 51 |
|---|---|
| 1 | yourself to a claim for a breach by the United States of the |
| 2 | non-prosecution agreement? |
| 3 | MR. CRITTON: Robert Critton. |
| 4 | Your Honor, our position on this case is, I'd say is |
| 5 | somewhat different. When this issue originally came before the |
| 6 | Court, as you are aware prior to my firm's involvement in the |
| 7 | case, there was a motion filed on behalf of Mr. Epstein seeking |
| 8 | And I think it was in Jane Doe 102 and then a stay. |
| 9 | subsequently Jane Doe 2 through 5 because all of those cases |
| 10 | were filed on or about the same time. |
| 11 | And at that time the Court looked at the issue and it |
| 12 | And the was based upon a statutory provision at that time. |
| 13 | Court said I don't find that it's applicable, or for whatever |
| 14 | reason I think the Court said I don't consider that to be a |
| 15 | pending proceeding or a proceeding at that particular time. |
| 16 | In that same order, which was in Jane Doe 2, I |
| 17 | believe it's -- not I believe, I know it's docket entry 33, the |
| 18 | Court also went on to talk about at that particular point in |
| 19 | time dealt with the issue of the discretionary stay. |
| 20 | And the Court said at that time, I'm paraphrasing, but |
| 21 | the Court also does not believe a discretionary stay is |
| 22 | warranted. And what the Court went on to say is that if |
| 23 | defendant does not breach the agreement, then he should have no |
| 24 | concerns regarding his Fifth Amendment right against |
| 25 | self-incrimination. |
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION¶
Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 7 of 51¶
1 2 3 4 5 The fact that the U.S. Attorney or other law enforcement officials may object to some discovery in these civil cases is not in and of itself a reason to stay the civil litigation, so that any such issue shall be resolved as they arise in the course of the litigation.¶
6 8 9 10 11 And I would respectfully submit to the Court that the position that the Government has taken in its most recent filings changes the playing field dramatically. Because what the Government in essence has said as distinct from the U.S. saying is, well, we object to some discovery, or we may object to some discovery in the civil cases.¶
12 13 14 15 16 17 What they have, in essence, said is if you take some action, Mr. Epstein, that we believe unilaterally, and this is on pages 13 and 14 of their pleading or of their response memo to the Court's inquiry, they say if Mr. Epstein breaches the agreement. They said it's basically like a contract, and if one side breaches, the other side can sue.¶
18 19 20 21 22 23 In this instance what the Government will do is if we believe that Mr. Epstein has breached the agreement, we'll indict him. We will indict him. And his remedy under that circumstance, which is an incredible and catastrophic catch 22 is, we'll indict him and then he can move to dismiss. That's a great option.¶
24 25 In this particular instance my mandate in defending - and that's a dramatic change in the Government's position,¶
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION¶
25¶
1 2 3 4 5 because the Government is not saying, and the Court was pretty specific in what you asked the Government for in its response is, in essence, and it's the same question in a more limited fashion you're posing today is whether Mr. Epstein's defense of the civil action violates the NPA agreement, the¶
6 non-prosecution agreement, between the U.S. and Mr. Epstein.¶
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 And the Government refuses to answer that question. They won't come out and say, yes, it will, or no, it won't. What they're doing is they want to sit on the sideline, and as their papers suggest is, they want us to lay in wait and that if, in fact, they believe he violates a provision of the NPA as it relates to the defense of this case or these multitude of cases, then they can come in and indict him -- no notice, no opportunity to cure.¶
15 16 17 18 19 We don't think that's what the NPA says, but that's certainly what their papers say. We'll indict him, no notice, no opportunity to cure. We will indict him, and his remedy under that circumstance is that he can move to dismiss the indictment.¶
20 21 22 23 24 Well, that's great except Mr. Epstein, his mandate to me and I know his mandate to his criminal lawyers, is: Make certain I don't do anything, in particular in these civil cases that would in any way suggest that I am in willful violation of the NPA.¶
Now, in the Court's prior ruling in the docket entry¶
Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 9 of 51 ,¶
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 33, certainly some aspects of the NPA are within Mr. Epstein's control. There's no question about that. But aspects that relate to the defense of these cases, either in terms of the civil lawyers who are defending these, I think there's 12 or 13 pending cases in front of you, there's another four cases in the state court, is the risk is substantial, it's real, and it presents a chilling effect for the civil lawyers in moving forward to determine whether or not we're taking some action that in some way may be a violation of the NPA.¶
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 And the Government's, again, refusal or non-position with regard to past acts that have been taken in the civil case with regard to the defense or future acts that we may take with regard to these contested litigation casts an extraordinary cloud of doubt and uncertainty and fear that the defense of these cases could jeopardize Mr. Epstein and put him in the irreparable position of violating the NPA and then subsequently being indicted.¶
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In this particular instance, again, Mr. Epstein has no intention of willfully violating the NPA, but it's of great concern to him. And I'd say with the position that the Government has taken, no notice, no cure period, no opportunity to discuss. Again, we think that's not what the NPA provides, it's not what the deal was between the two contracting parties, the United States and Mr. Epstein. But that's clearly what their papers say under the circumstances, and it would create¶
1¶
this irreparable harm to Mr. Epstein under the circumstances.¶
2 3 4 5 6 In essence, we're left with a catch 22 in defending the civil cases. We have a mandate to take no action, to take any action which may be deemed to be a violation of the NPA, either in the past or in the future, which would in any way risk Mr. Epstein being indicted by the United States.¶
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 He has the clear risk of an indictment based upon the papers that the Government filed. It's real, it's not remote, and it's not speculative. It chills the action of the defense in this instance of both Mr. Epstein and his attorneys in trying to defend these cases and decide under the circumstances can we do this, can we take this position with regard to depositions, can we take this legal position with regard to motions to dismiss, with regard to responses, with regard to replies?¶
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And we send out paper discovery. Is this in some way if we contact someone who may be an associate of these individuals as part of our investigation, is that potentially in any way a violation of the NPA? Again, we don't think so. And, obviously, again, my direction has been from my client: Don't take any action that would result in me being indicted under the NPA. Well, that's great. But, generally, civil lawyers or civil lawyers in defending a personal injury case or a tort case, which is exactly what these are, and from a practical standpoint, we use various tools to do discovery.¶
25¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 11 of 51¶
1 2 They're standard. They're specific. They're very temporary. Very typical.¶
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 But in this instance, as the Court knows, things are not typical with regard to this case in any way, shape or form. We can't even serve subpoenaes, there's objections and there's -- we can't even serve objections to third parties so we can obtain documents unless we have to filter it through the plaintiffs' attorneys. They won't allow us to use their clients' names, even in a subpoena that would never be filed in the court.¶
11 12 13 14 15 16 How do we do a deposition of a third party? We wanted to take the deposition of Jane Doe 4. Well, who is she? Well, we can't tell you that. Well, who's the defendant? Well, we can't tell you that because nobody wants anybody to know anything about the case. They want to present it strictly through rose-colored glasses.¶
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 And in this particular instance, we simply can't defend this case or take certain action with the spector hanging over us that, in fact, the Government may deem it to be a violation of the NPA, because very clearly in their response papers, they don't say. They say we don't take the position, and then they take a substantial position is we think there's not all that substantial factors that would entitle him to a stay.¶
Except for the one major issue which the Court posed¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 12 of 51 1¶
| 1 | in the question is, is can he defend these cases? That's what |
|---|---|
| 2 | I really want to know. Can he defend these cases and, in |
| 3 | essence, what he has done in the past or what his defense team |
| 4 | has done in the past and what they're going to do in the |
| 5 | future, can you give him, Epstein, assurances that the |
| 6 | Government under this situation, whatever he does, based on |
| 7 | advice of counsel, that that cannot be a willful violation of |
| 8 | the NPA, which they can -- they, the U.S. -- can then turn |
| 9 | around and say that's a violation of the agreement and, |
| 10 | therefore, we're going to go proceed to indict you under the |
| 11 | circumstances. |
| 12 | Our position is, Your Honor, is that the U.S. has now |
| 13 | cavalierly suggested that, as they did in picking up on the |
14 15 16 court's docket entry or prior order, is, look, compliance with the NPA is solely up to Mr. Epstein. In this type of balance of equities, it doesn't speak in favor of a stay.¶
17 18 19 Well, that's great. And maybe that was the position back in '08, on August 5th of '08, when the issue came up in front of the Court with regard to the initial stay.¶
20 21 22 23 24 25 But the Government's papers under these circumstances suggested a very different set of circumstances. Their own unilateral, which is the issue that we argued in the motion for stay, is that the Government's position is that we can unilaterally indict this man if we think he's breached the NPA. We don't think that's right, but we have no buffer¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 13 of 51¶
1 2 3 4 between us and the Government. They'll say, and as the Court knows, the Government has substantial power. The Government does what it wants. Most of the time hopefully they're right. Sometimes they make mistakes.¶
5 6 7 8 But in this particular instance, my client has rights. We think that there's notice provisions, we think there's cure provisions under the NPA. That's not what their paper says under the circumstances.¶
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 And what we'd like to know from the Government, and maybe the answer is basically what the Court asks is, let the Government come forward today and say, based on the knowledge that we have, or as of today's date, June 12th, 2009, we, the Government, agree that there is no set of circumstances, not that we're not aware of, but as of today's date, there is nothing that exists that would be a violation of the NPA.¶
16 17 18 19 20 21 THE COURT: Well, that's way beyond what I'm interested in. I don't know what Mr. Epstein may have done outside the context of defending this case that may constitute a violation. And if he has done something outside the context of defending this case that's a violation, I don't care. That's between the United States and Mr. Epstein.¶
22 23 24 25 I'm only concerned about whether anything he does in defending these civil actions is going to be a violation of the non-prosecution agreement. If he has done something else, it's none of my business, and I don't care, and I'm not going to¶
| Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM | Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 14 of 51 |
|---|---|
| 1 | even ask the Government to give you an assurance that he hasn't |
| 2 | done anything that might have violated the agreement up till |
| 3 | today. I'm only interested in defending these civil actions. |
| 4 | MR. CRITTON: Then I would respectfully submit to the |
| 5 | Court that the Government be asked in that limited context, are |
| 6 | they as of today, whether there were or not, but as of today is |
| there anything that has been done or will you take the | |
| 8 | position, the United States, that any position that Mr. Epstein |
| 9 | has taken with regard to defending these civil cases is in any |
| 10 | way a violation of the NPA? |
| 11 | THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure what they're going to |
| 12 | say, but that might -- that cures the problem up to this point. |
| 13 | But then we have to deal with what's going to happen from here |
| 14 | on in. And that's another issue that we have to deal with. |
| 15 | So I understand your position. |
| 16 | But has anyone suggested to you on behalf of the |
| 17 | United States that there is something that you've done in |
| 18 | defending this case that they believe may or could be construed |
| 19 | as a violation of the non-prosecution agreement? Has anyone |
| 20 | pointed to anything that you've done? For example, the fact |
| 21 | that you've wanted to take their -- I don't know if you've |
| 22 | noticed depositions or not in this case, but if you've sent |
| 23 | notice of taking deposition, if you sent requests for |
| 24 | production of documents, if you sent interrogatories, if you |
| 25 | issued third party subpoenas? Is anything you've done thus far |
| TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION |
| Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM | Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 15 of 51 15 |
|---|---|
| 1 | in the context of this case been brought to your attention as a |
| 2 | potential violation? |
| 3 | MR. CRITTON: I have received no notification nor am I |
| 4 | aware that we've received any notification of any action that |
| 5 | we have taken today. As I suggested to the Court, I don't know |
| 6 | when they've done or not. And in their papers they suggested, |
| well, we don't know everything that's gone on in the civil | |
| 8 | litigation. |
| 9 | But from a practical standpoint, it was a number of |
| 10 | comments that were made in their papers is, we can indict, we |
| 11 | can see if there's a breach. |
| 12 | Judge, I may have some -- |
| 13 | THE COURT: Before you go on. |
| 14 | MR. CRITTON: I'm sorry. |
| 15 | THE COURT: You've focused a great deal on the |
| 16 | Government's response to my inquiry as supporting your position |
| 17 | But you've made the suggestion, even that you're in jeopardy. |
| 18 | before this brief was filed, that defending the case was going |
| 19 | to potentially result in an assertion or allegation that you |
| 20 | breached the non-prosecution agreement. |
| 21 | So what was it that caused you to make that initial |
| 22 | Because that's what caught my attention, was not assertion? |
| 23 | this brief that the Government has filed was in response to |
| 24 | something that you filed initially in your most recent motion |
| 25 | for a stay which raised the issue. |
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 16 of 51 1¶
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So what was it that gave you some concern to even raise the issue that defending this case is going to constitute a breach? MR. CRITTON: Because there are other instances where counsel other than myself, not in the civil aspects, where allegations have been made and letters have been sent by the United States suggesting that there's been a violation of the NPA. And under those circumstances, some notification was provided. THE COURT: Did it have anything to do with defending the civil actions? MR. CRITTON: It did not. THE COURT: So then why was that issue raised by you in the first instance? MR. CRITTON: Because of the prospect that the defendant could take, that the U.S. would take the position under the circumstances that a position that we took with regard to the contested litigation may well impact, that the Government may have a very different view of what the interpretation of the agreement is. And as an example is a number of the parties, and I know the Court doesn't want to get into a discussion, the issue is, is under 2255 is that from the defendant's perspective the deal that was cut on that, it was a very specific deal. It dealt with both consensual and contested litigation. It dealt TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION¶
| Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM | Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06 24 2009 Page 17 of 51 1 |
|---|---|
| 1 | with a secret list of individuals who we had no idea who was on |
| 2 | the list, and a commitment that he would under certain |
| 3 | circumstances be required to pay a minimum amount of damages, |
| 4 | which our position is under 2255 based upon the statute that |
| 5 | was in effect at the time, a $50,000 as to anyone who wanted -- |
| 6 | who came forward who was on the list and met certain criteria. |
| 7 | The position that now has been asserted by a number of |
| 8 | the plaintiffs under the circumstances, and it's been pled, and |
| 9 | actually a number of the complainants is, is Epstein agreed, |
| 10 | and they cite to a letter that was sent by Ms. from |
| 11 | the Government, that says he has to plead guilty or he can't |
| 12 | contest liability. That may be true under very, very limited |
| 13 | or specific circumstances. |
| 14 | But what the plaintiffs have done in a number of the |
| 15 | cases, and these are pending motions, is they've said is, well, |
| 16 | we think C.M.A. cases is a good example, they've pled 30 |
| 17 | separate counts of 2255 alleged violations. And they're saying |
| 18 | under the circumstances is, therefore, we have 2255 violations, |
| 19 | there's 30 of them, so 30 times 150, or should be, or whether |
| 20 | it's 150, that's the amount of money that we want, so maybe $15 |
| 21 | million, or whatever the number is. |
| 22 | Some of the other plaintiffs' lawyers have been even |
| 23 | They've said is, well, we'll agree that it's more creative. |
| 24 | only one cause of action but that each number of violations; |
| 25 | that is, if 20 alleged incidents occurred, that we would |
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 18 of 51¶
1 2 3 consider to be, or that we will argue are violations, then we can take 20 times the 50, or the 150, depending on which statute is applicable.¶
4 5 6 7 8 So the Government under that set of circumstance could say, and, again, this is one of the reasons that we raised it, they could say, look, our deal with you was that you couldn't contest liability, that you were waiving liability, or your ability to contest an enumerated offense under 2255.¶
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Again, part of the deal was as to an enumerated offense. Okay. Well, what's that mean? What did he plead to? Well, he really didn't plead to anything, which is another issue associated with the 2255. But if the Government comes in and says, no, wait a minute, our position was, is that you're stuck with 2255 and the language within the NPA. And, therefore, whether it's an offense or whether it's multiple offenses or violations or each one represents an individual cause of action, if the Government takes the position that's adverse to what we think the clear reading of the agreement was under those circumstances, they could claim a violation.¶
20 21 22 23 24 And as a result -- and that's one of the reasons we put -- that was the most glaring one to us, so we raised that issue. And then when the Government's response came with regard to, is we can just proceed to indict if we think that there's been a breach of the agreement.¶
25 That puts us at substantial risk and chills our¶
| Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM | Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06;24:2009 Page 19 of 51 19 |
|---|---|
| 1 | ability to move forward. Thank you, Your Honor. |
| 2 | THE COURT: Thank you. Who wants to be heard from the |
| 3 | plaintiffs first? |
| 4 | Is there any plaintiff's attorney who is contending |
| 5 | that the defense of these civil actions by Mr. Epstein is going |
| 6 | to constitute a breach of the non-prosecution agreement? |
| 7 | MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, this is Bob Josefsberg. |
| 8 | May I speak? |
| 9 | THE COURT: Yes, sir. |
| 10 | MR. JOSEFSBERG: We're not quite confident that any |
| 11 | breaches of any agreement, which were third-party |
| 12 | beneficiaries, should be resolved by you. We're not saying it |
| 13 | But we have not raised any breach of agreement. shouldn't. We |
| 14 | think that is between the United States and Mr. Epstein. |
| 15 | What I find incredulous and disingenuous is that |
| 16 | Mr. Epstein is saying that he wants a stay because he may be |
| 17 | forced into taking actions in the defense of this case that |
| 18 | would violate the agreement. |
| 19 | And let me make our position clear on that. If he |
| 20 | wants to move to take depositions, interrogatories, production, |
| 21 | and they are according to your rulings appropriate, not |
| 22 | invasive of the privacy of someone, and they are relevant, then |
| 23 | I don't know how those could in any way be violations of the |
| 24 | agreement. |
| 25 | What I find hypocritical is that there are two parts |
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 20 of 51 20¶
1 2 3 to the agreement that I am a beneficiary of. One of them is that he has agreed that on any action brought in the 2255, he will admit to liability.¶
4 5 6 7 8 9 And I received on May 26 a motion to dismiss, which we're prepared to respond to and disagree with, but totally contesting liability, saying that the statute doesn't apply because the girls are no longer minors and saying, and this is the great one, saying that the predicate of the conviction under 2255 has not been satisfied.¶
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Now, the understanding that I have is the agreement between the Government and Mr. Epstein was that the Government desired to see these victims made whole, and wanted them to be in the same position as if Mr. Epstein had been prosecuted and pled or convicted. And they would be able to have the predicate of that criminal conviction, which just as a matter of liability would just be introduced as proof that he's done this.¶
18 19 20 21 22 They, under the agreement, are supposed to admit to liability on limited something that's under 2255. He has filed, but since there is no conviction, there can be no civil suit under 2255, with which we disagree. But it is totally in opposite of the NPA.¶
23 24 25 The second part is there are many young ladies, and this perhaps he can use this to his great advantage, who are humiliated about this entire situation. Some of them won't¶
25¶
1 come forward.¶
2 3 4 5 6 We were appointed by Judge Davis as a Special Master to represent these young ladies. And some of them don't even want to file suit. They don't even want to be known as Jane Doe 103. They don't want any of the risks for these motions that are pending.¶
8 9 10 And part of the agreement was that if we represented them and they settle, Mr. Epstein would pay our fees. And he has written us as of yesterday that he is under no obligation to pay our fees on settling cases.¶
11 12 13 14 15 Now, those two matters, I believe, may be breaches. But I am not asking this Court at this time to do anything about them. Nor am I telling the Government, I'm not running to the Government and saying indict him because I want you to pressure him to do what he agreed to.¶
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I'm a third-party beneficiary for that agreement, and I may move to enforce certain parts of it. But as far as the issue of staying the litigation, that is the exact opposite of the intent and the letter of the NPA. The purpose of the NPA was so that these 34 young ladies, these victims who have been severely traumatized, may move on with their lives. And to stay this action would be the exact opposite of the purpose of that agreement and would be horrible psychologically for all of my clients.¶
THE COURT: Mr. Josefsberg, I understand your¶
1 2 position. And I don't want to argue the merits of whether a stay should or should not be granted.¶
3 4 5 6 7 8 I'm just trying to understand what the ground rules are going to be if I grant a stay or if I deny a stay. And I've already denied a stay once. I have to decide this current motion, and I just want to know what is going to happen if I deny the stay in terms of Mr. Epstein's exposure under the non-prosecution agreement. That's my concern.¶
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So if you're telling me that you're not going to urge the United States, on behalf of any of your clients, to take the position that he's breached the agreement because he's taking depositions, because he's pursuing discovery, because he's conducting investigations that anyone in any other type of civil litigation might conduct with respect to plaintiffs that are pursuing claims against a defendant, that those typical types of actions, in your judgment, are not breaches of the agreement and that he can go forward and defend the case as any other defendant could defend, and you're not going to run to the United States and say, hey, he's breaching the agreement by taking depositions and he's breaching the agreement by issuing subpoenas to third parties in order to gather information necessary to defend, then I don't have a problem. But if he's going to be accused of breaching the agreement because he sends out a notice of deposition of one of your clients, how is he supposed to defend the case?¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06224/2009 Page 23 of 51 2¶
| 1 | MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, you're totally correct. |
|---|---|
| 2 | But the He can depose my client. That's not a problem. |
| 3 | problem is that these are not typical clients and this is not a |
| 4 | He has written in his pleadings that he wants to typical case. |
| 5 | publish the names of these girls in the newspapers so that |
| 6 | other people may come forward to discuss their sexual |
| 7 | activities with these different plaintiffs. That's not your |
| 8 | typical case. But are rulings that you'll make in this case, |
| 9 | and they're not part of the NPA. |
10 11 12 13 14 As far as my going to the Government is concerned, I find it very uncomfortable for me to use the Government to try to pursue my financial interest in litigation. And I know that Mr. Epstein and his counsel will make much ado about it. So am not going to be running there.¶
15 16 17 However, if they start taking depositions regarding liability, I will consider that to be a breach because they're supposed to have admitted liability.¶
18 19 20 21 22 THE COURT: But, again, I don't have the agreement and I don't remember reading the agreement. But what I'm being told is the part of the agreement that admits liability is only as to a 2255 claim, and there are numerous other personal injury tort claims other than 2255 claims.¶
23 24 25 And there's a limit of damages on the 2255 claim, as I understand it, but I presume that all the plaintiffs are going to seek more than the limited or capped amount of damages in¶
1¶
the non-prosecution agreement as to the other claims.¶
2 3 4 And so why aren't they entitled to defend and limit the amount of damages that your client is seeking on the non-2255 tort claims?¶
5 6 7 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, you are correct. On non-2255 tort claims, they are permitted to do the defense, whatever is appropriate.¶
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 My cases are pure 2255 on which liability under the agreement is supposed to be admitted. Now, as to the amount of damages, there are legal issues that will be before you and under the C.M.A. cases that are getting before you, as to whether it is 50 or 150. That has nothing to do with the NPA. There are legal issues that are before you as to whether it is per statute, per count or per incident or per plaintiff. Those have nothing to do with the NPA. There is no amount in NPA. Those will be resolved.¶
17 18 19 Anyone who has brought a case that is outside of 2255, the defense is permitted to contest liability under the NPA. That's no violation.¶
20 21 22 23 24 25 Under the NPA if someone brought a case under just 2255, Mr. Epstein, if he is to keep his word, cannot contest liability. And there would no need to stay this. Because it is a self-fulfilling agreement. He can contest liability. And as far as the amount of damages, anyone that wants to go over the statutory minimums, of course, he can contest that in any¶
| Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -- | -- | -- | ------------------------ | -- |
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06,'24:2009 Page 25 of 51 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 way that is proper under the Rules of Evidence and your rulings. The NPA has no limitation on his contesting damages above the minimum statutory amount. The only thing that he has done is in his actions of refusing to pay for settling defendants, and in his saying that he has no liability under 2255, those appear to be contrary to what's in the NPA. But I'm not in any position right now to claim a breach, and I don't know whether I'd be claiming a breach or enforcing it in front of you, suing him for fees, asking you to have him admit liability, or complaining to the Government. And that's why I'm not that helpful in this situation because I think it's the Government's role. But I do not waive the right to be a third-party beneficiary because pursuant to my appointment, which was agreed to by Mr. Epstein, I and my clients have certain rights, and we want to enforce them. But his defending this lawsuit will not in any way be a violation. His getting this lawsuit stayed would be a violation of the spirit of taking care of these girls, and there would be other issues. Like if there is a stay, Your Honor, would he be posting a bond? THE COURT: We don't need to talk about those issues. That's not my concern. MR. JOSEFSBERG: I agree, Your Honor, we don't. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24:2009 Page 26 of 51 2¶
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: That's not my concern. So, again, I just want to make sure that if the cases go forward and if Mr. Epstein defends the case as someone ordinarily would defend a case that's being prosecuted against him or her, that that in and of itself is not going to cause him to be subject to criminal prosecution. MR. JOSEFSBERG: I agree, Your Honor. THE COURT: Any other plaintiff's counsel want to chime in? MR. WILLITS: Richard Willits on behalf of C.M.A.. would join, to weigh in on what Mr. Josefsberg said. MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, I could not hear. THE COURT: We'll get him to a microphone. Mr. Willits is speaking. MR. WILLITS: On behalf of my client, C.M.A., we join in what Mr. Josefsberg said, and we also want to point out something to the Court. First, we want to make a representation to the Court, we have no intention of complaining to the U.S. Attorney's Office, never had that intention, don't have that intention in the future, but, of course, subject to what occurs in the future. I want to point out to the Court that Mr. Epstein went into this situation with his eyes wide open, represented by counsel, knowing that civil suits had to be coming. If he TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION¶
8¶
1 didn't know it, his lawyers knew it.¶
2 3 4 5 6 7 He appears to be having second thoughts now about he could have negotiated this way or he could have negotiated that way with the U.S. Attorney's Office. And they want to impose their second thoughts on the innocent plaintiffs. We don't think that's fair. We think it's in the nature of invited error, if there was any error whatsoever.¶
- Thank you. 9 10 11 THE COURT: You agree he should be able to take the ordinary steps that a defendant in a civil action can take and not be concerned about having to be prosecuted?
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. WILLITS: Of course. And we say the same thing Mr. Josefsberg said. It's all subject to your rulings and the direction of this Court as to what is proper and what is not proper. And we're prepared to abide by the rulings of this Court, and we have no intention of running to the State's Attorney. THE COURT: The U.S. Attorney? MR. WILLITS: I'm sorry. The U.S. Attorney. THE COURT: Mr. MR. : Thank you, Your Honor.¶
22 23 24 25 If I may briefly, I think perhaps defense counsel forgot about this, but on pages 17 and 19 of my memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to dismiss, I did make reference to the non-prosecution agreement, and I did say that¶
| Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM | Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 28 of 51 2 |
|---|---|
| 1 | the contesting of the jurisdiction of this Court was a |
| 2 | potential breach of the non-prosecution agreement. |
| 3 | So my client happens to have, and they have filed with |
| 4 | the Court a copy of her state court complaint, given the fact |
| 5 | that the non-prosecution agreement limits the non-contesting of |
| 6 | jurisdiction to claims exclusively brought under the federal |
| 7 | statute. |
| 8 | I'm going to go ahead and withdraw those contentions |
| 9 | on pages 17 and 19 of my memo of law because it doesn't apply |
| 10 | So to the extent that I raised this issue with to my case. |
| 11 | defense counsel and the Court, I'm going to withdraw that |
| 12 | aspect of it. |
| 13 | THE COURT: Can you file something in writing on that |
| 14 | point with the Court? |
| 15 | : Yes. MR. |
| 16 | THE COURT: What do you say about this issue that |
| 17 | we're here on today? |
| 18 | : I think that the problem that I have with MR. |
| 19 | it is that this non-prosecution agreement is being used by |
| 20 | defense counsel for the exact opposite purpose that it was |
| 21 | My perception of this thing, and I wasn't around, is intended. |
| 22 | that Mr. Epstein essentially bought his way out of a criminal |
| 23 | prosecution, which is wonderful for the victims in a way, and |
| 24 | wonderful for him, too. |
| 25 | Now he's trying to use the non-prosecution agreement |
| TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION |
¶
1¶
it, it doesn't relate to our clients.¶
2 3 4 5 6 THE COURT: Okay. But, again, you're in agreement with everyone else so far that's spoken on behalf of a plaintiff that defending the case in the normal course of conducting discovery and filing motions would not be a breach? MR. : Subject to your rulings, of course,¶
7 yes.¶
8¶
THE COURT: Thank you.¶
9 10 11 12 13 14 Anyone else have anything to say from the plaintiffs? Ms. , if you would be so kind as to maybe help us out. I appreciate the fact that you're here, and I know you're not a party to these cases and under no obligation to respond to my inquiries. But as I indicated, it would be helpful for me to understand the Government's position.¶
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MS. : Thank you, Your Honor. And we, of course, are always happy to try to help the Court as much as possible. But we are not a party to any of these lawsuits, and in some ways we are at a disadvantage because we don't have access. My access is limited to what's on Pacer. So I don't really know what positions Mr. Epstein may have taken either in correspondence or in discovery responses that aren't filed in the case file.¶
23 24 25 But your first order was really just what do you think about a stay, and then the second order related to this hearing and asked a much more specific question, which is whether we¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 31 of 51 3¶
1 2 3 4 5 believe that Mr. Epstein's defense was a breach of the agreement. And I've tried to review as many of the pleadings as possible. As you know, they're extremely voluminous. And I haven't been through all of them. But we do believe that there¶
6 7 8 9 has been a breach in the filing that Mr. Josefsberg referred to, and contrary to Mr. Critton, we do understand that we have an obligation to provide notice, and we are providing notice to Mr. Epstein today.¶
10 11 12 13 14 The pleading that we found to be in breach -- the non-prosecution agreement, sought to do one thing, which was to place the victims in the same position they would have been if Mr. Epstein had been convicted of the federal offenses for which he was investigated.¶
15 16 17 18 19 And that if he had been federally prosecuted and convicted, the victims would have been entitled to restitution, regardless of how long ago the crimes were committed, regardless of how old they were at the time, and how old they are today, or at the time of the conviction.¶
20 21 And it also would have made them eligible for damages under 2255.¶
22 23 24 25 And so our idea was, our hope was that we could set up a system that would allow these victims to get that restitution without having to go through what civil litigation will expose them to.¶
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOIv1 NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 32 of 51 3¶
1 2 3 4 5 You have a number of girls who were very hesitant about even speaking to authorities about this because of the trauma that they have suffered and about the embarrassment that they were afraid would be brought upon themselves and upon their families.¶
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 So we did through the non-prosecution agreement tried to protect their rights while also protecting their privacy. So, pursuant to the non-prosecution agreement -- on the other hand, we weren't trying to hand them a jackpot or a key to a bank. It was solely to sort of put them in that same position. So we developed this language that said if -- that provided for an attorney to represent them. Most of the victims, as you know from the pleadings, come from not wealthy circumstances, may not have known any attorneys who would be in a position to help them.¶
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So we went through the Special Master procedure that resulted in the appointment of Mr. Josefsberg, and the goal was that they would be able to try to negotiate with Mr. Epstein for a fair amount of restitution/damages. And if Mr. Epstein took the position, which apparently he has, which is that the $50,000 or $150,000 floor under 2255 also would be a cap. TL-tt if they were to proceed to file suit in Federal Court to get fair damages under 2255, Mr. Epstein would admit liability, but he, of course, could fight the damages portion, which means that, of course, he would be entitled to depositions; of¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 33 of 51 3¶
1 2 3 course, he would be entitled to take discovery, and we don't believe that any of that violates the non-prosecution agreement.¶
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The issue with the pleading that he filed, the motion to dismiss the case, I believe it's Jane Doe 101, represented by Mr. Josefsberg, is that that is a case that was filed exclusively under 18 U.S.C., Section 2255. She met that requirement. Mr. Epstein is moving to dismiss it, not on the basis of damages, he is saying that he cannot be held liable under 2255 because he was not convicted of an offense.¶
11 12 13 The reason why he was not convicted of an offense is because he entered into the non-prosecution agreement. So that we do believe is a breach.¶
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 The issue really that was raised in the motion to stay and that I addressed in our response to the motion to stay is that Mr. Epstein's -- Mr. Epstein wants to stay the litigation in order to leave, in order to sort of attack the cases of the victims whether they are fully within the non-prosecution or not, non-prosecution agreement or not, and leave the Government without a remedy if he does, in fact, breach those terms. And that is why we opposed the stay.¶
22 23 THE COURT: I'm not sure what you mean by that last statement.¶
24 25 MS. : Well, because this issue related to the motion to dismiss on Mr. Josefsberg's client came up after¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 34 of 51 3¶
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 we had filed that response. And what we said in the response to the motion to stay is that the reason why he wants to stay the litigation is so that the non-prosecution agreement terminates based on a period of time, as he puts it. And then afterwards he would be able to come in here and make all of these arguments that clearly violate the non-prosecution agreement but we would be without remedy.¶
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 THE COURT: But you're not taking the position that other than possibly doing something in litigation which is a violation of an express provision of the non-prosecution agreement, any other discovery, motion practice, investigations that someone would ordinarily do in the course of defending a civil case would constitute a violation of the agreement? MS. : No, Your Honor. I mean, civil litigation is civil litigation, and being able to take discovery is part of what civil litigation is about. And while there may be, for example, if someone were to try to subpoena the Government, we would obviously resist under statutory reasons, all that sort of stuff. But, no, Mr. Epstein is entitled to take the deposition of a plaintiff and to subpoena records, etc.¶
22 23 24 25 THE COURT: And even if he seeks discovery from a Government agency, you have the right to resist it under the rules of procedure but that would not constitute a violation, again unless there's a provision in the prosecution agreement¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06)24:2009 Page 35 of 51 35¶
¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 36 of 51 3¶
1 2 3 4 102 is a perfect example that he filed is, we have e-mails going back and forth between the Government and my clients' attorneys at the time that suggested that 102 probably doesn't even fit within the statute of limitations.¶
5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 So under Mr. Josefsberg's argument is as well, we've only brought a 2255 claim. We don't care whether she's within or is outside the statute of limitations. Because she was on the list and under the circumstances, he has to admit liability, which we contest is under that set of circumstances you're stuck with it. You can fight damages if you can, but she's a real person and you can't raise statute of limitations. The other point that kind of strikes out is there's probably a difference. And I'm happy to provide a copy of the NPA or a redacted portion of the NPA which deals with the civil issues, which are paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10, and the entire addenda in camera for the Court to look at, if plaintiff's counsel and the Government, I guess, really, because they're not a party, is if they have no objection because they all have access based on a prior court order to the non-prosecution agreement. So I'm happy to provide that to the Court today and show it to counsel so that the Court can review that.¶
23 24 25 But our position with regard to the 2255 claims is that -- there were two types of claims that could be filed, one was consensual litigation, the second was contested litigation.¶
| Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ------------------------ | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 37 of 51 3¶
1 2 3 And under the consensual, in essence, which Mr. Epstein did, is he's offered $50,000 of the statutory minimum for that time period to all of those individuals.¶
4 5 THE COURT: Can I interrupt you a second? MR. CRITTON: Yes, sir.¶
6 8 9 THE COURT: I'm not here, and I don't believe it's my role to decide whether or not there is or is not a breach of the agreement. I'm just trying to understand what the Government's position is regarding your defending these cases.¶
10 11 12 13 14 Now, I'm just saying this as an example. If, for example, in the non-prosecution agreement there was a provision that said explicitly: Jeffrey Epstein shall not move to dismiss any claim brought under 2255 by any victim no matter how long ago the allegations or the acts took place, period.¶
15 16 17 If that was in the agreement and you filed a motion to dismiss by someone who brought a claim, it might sound like it might be a violation.¶
18 MR. CRITTON: I agree.¶
19 20 THE COURT: So you would know that when you filed your motion because it was right there for you to read.¶
21 22 23 24 25 And so to stay the case because I want to do something that the contract expressly prohibits me from doing, so stay the case until the agreement expires so then I can do something that the agreement said I couldn't do so you won't be in fear of prosecuting, I'm not sure that that is what I'm concerned¶
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION¶
1 about.¶
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I'm concerned about discovery, investigation, motion practice, that's not prohibited by a provision of the agreement. If there's something that's prohibited by the agreement that you, knowing what the agreement says, go ahead and do, anyway, I guess that's a risk you're going to have to take. If there's a legitimate dispute about it, I guess some arbiter is going to decide whether it's a breach or not. But, again, that's something you and Mr. Burman,¶
10 11 12 13 14 Mr. Goldberger, and you are all very good lawyers, and he's got a whole list of lawyers representing him, and you've got the agreement and you're going to make legal decisions on how to proceed, and you're going to have to go and make your own decisions.¶
15 16 17 18 19 20 I'm concerned about things that aren't in the agreement, that aren't covered, that you're going to be accused of violating because, again, you take depositions, you send out subpoenas, you file motions that are not prohibited by the agreement. And that's what I'm concerned about. MR. CRITTON: And I understand that, Your Honor.¶
21 22 23 24 25 But at the same time, it's as if the lawyers and the clients, based upon our interpretation of the agreement, and, believe me, we would not have filed 101, the motion to dismiss, but for believing that there was a good faith basis to do that under the circumstances.¶
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 39 of 51 39¶
1 2 3 4 And now, in essence, we're being accused not only by -- not accused, but it's been suggested that there's a breach of the NPA, not only by Mr. Josefsberg on behalf of 101, but as well Ms. on behalf of the United States.¶
5 6 8 9 That's the perfect example. They're basically saying we think you violated. We may send you notice under the circumstances. So does that mean that on 101 we have to back off of it because we think in good faith that it's a motion and is that something that this Court ultimately will rule?¶
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 THE COURT: I don't know that I'm the one who is going to make that decision. Again, that's not the kind of thing that I was concerned about. I was more concerned about the normal, ordinary course of conducting and defending a case that would not otherwise expressly be covered under the agreement, that you're going to then have someone say, ah, he's sent a notice of deposition, he's harassing the plaintiffs. I don't_ know if there's a no contact provision in the agreement or no harassment type of provision in the agreement. Ah, this is a breach because you sent discovery, or he's issuing subpoenas to third parties trying to find out about these victims' backgrounds, he's breaching the agreement.¶
22 23 24 25 Those are the kind of things that I was worried about. MR. CRITTON: The concern that we have is as part of doing this general civil litigation, it's not just the discovery process. And I understand the issues that the Court¶
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION¶
1 has raised.¶
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 But part of it is that often cases are disposed of either on a summary basis or certainly legal issues that come before the Court during the course of the case, just like in a criminal case. That's clearly part of the, I'd say the defense of the case under the circumstances; and if, in fact, an individual can't legally bring a cause of action for certain reasons, such as has been suggested in 101, and may be suggested in 102 when that pleading is filed, that certainly is a position that puts my client at risk.¶
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 As another example that I use with C.M.A., that they filed this 30-count complaint. Now, they have the state court claims as well. But they, in essence, have said they filed another pleading with the Court that says depending on what the Court rules, in essence, on whether we can file multiple claims or one cause of action with multiple violations, we may dump the state court claims and, therefore, we'll just ride along on that. That's a very different --¶
19 20 21 22 23 24 Mr. Epstein would never have entered into, nor would his attorneys have allowed him to enter into that agreement under those circumstances where he had this unlimited liability. That clearly was never envisioned by any of the defendants -- by the defendant or any of his lawyers under the circumstances.¶
25 And if that's claimed to be a violation, either by the¶
| Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM | Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 41 of 51 4 |
|---|---|
| 1 | attorneys; i.e., he's not recapitulating on liability under the |
| 2 | 2255, and that's all we have now. That's our exclusive remedy. |
| 3 | And the Government says, yeah, that's right, that's a |
| 4 | violation of the NPA. It again chills us from moving forward, |
| 5 | filing the necessary motion papers and taking legal positions |
| 6 | that may put my client at risk for violating the NPA and then |
| 7 | creating the irreparable harm of, after having been in jail, |
| 8 | after having pled guilty to the state court counts, after |
| 9 | registering on release as a sex offender, he's complied and |
| 10 | done everything, taken extraordinary efforts to comply with the |
| 11 | NPA, puts him at substantial risk. And that's what our worry |
| 12 | is moving forward. |
| 13 | MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, may I be heard. May I |
| 14 | It will take less than a minute. make three comments? |
| 15 | THE COURT: Yes, sir. |
| 16 | MR. JOSEFSBERG: Mr. Critton refers to the alleged |
| 17 | I want you to know that our position is that pursuant victims. |
| 18 | to the NPA they're not alleged victims. They are actual, real |
| 19 | victims, admitted victims. |
| 20 | Secondly, he argues about the statute of limitations |
| 21 | on 102. I know that you don't want to hear about that, and I'm |
| 22 | not going to comment about it. But please don't take our lack |
| 23 | of argument about this as being we agree with anything. |
| 24 | Last and most important, we totally agree with |
25 Mr. Critton in his suggestion that he hand you a copy of the¶
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION¶
| Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM | Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06;24:2009 Page 42 of 51 4 |
|---|---|
| 1 | NPA. I think that many of the questions you asked will be |
| 2 | answered when you read the NPA, and I think it's very unfair of |
| 3 | everyone who is sitting in front of you who have the NPA to be |
| 4 | discussing with you whether it's being breached, whether there |
| 5 | should be a stay when you're not that familiar with it. |
| 6 | If we would give you a copy of it, I think it would be |
| 7 | much more helpful in making your ruling. |
| 8 | THE COURT: Maybe Judge Colvat will resolve this issue |
| 9 | for me. |
| 10 | MR. JOSEFSBERG: Even if he doesn't, Your Honor, I |
| 11 | believe we are allowed to show it to you. |
| 12 | I'll tell you what: I'll wait for Judge THE COURT: |
| 13 | Colvat to rule, and then if he rules that it should remain |
| 14 | sealed, then I'll consider whether or not I want to have it |
| 15 | submitted to me in camera. |
| 16 | Anything else, Mr. Josefsberg? |
| 17 | MR. JOSEFSBERG: No. I thank you on behalf of myself |
| 18 | and the other counsel on the phone for permitting us to appear |
| 19 | by phone. |
| 20 | All right. THE COURT: Anyone else have anything they |
| 21 | want to add? |
| 22 | MR. on behalf of Jane Doe. |
| 23 | I only had one issue here, and when I read your motion |
| 24 | that you wanted to hear on the narrow issue of just defense in |
| 25 | the civil actions filed against him violates the |
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION¶
| Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -- | -- | -- | ------------------------ | -- |
1¶
2¶
3¶
4¶
5¶
6¶
7¶
8¶
9¶
10¶
11¶
12¶
13¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24:2009 Page 43 of 51 4¶
non-prosecution agreement, I was expecting that we were going to hear something from the Government similar to the affidavit that was filed by Mr. Epstein's attorneys wherein he indicates as of the day of this affidavit attached to the motion to stay, the U.S. Attorney's Office has taken the position that Epstein has breached the non-prosecution agreement and it names specifically investigation by Epstein of this plaintiff and other plaintiffs, Epstein's contesting damages in this action. Epstein, or his legal representatives, making statements to the press. And we didn't hear any of those things. So that's what I was expecting that the U.S. Attorney's Office was going to expound on and say, yes, we've made some communications to Epstein. He's violating.¶
14 15 16 17 What we're hearing right now, today, just so that I'm clear, and I think the Court is clear now, is that the non-prosecution agreement is what it is. There have been no violations, but for maybe what Mr. Josefsberg brought up.¶
18 19 20 21 But there are very few restrictions on Mr. Epstein. He went into this eyes wide open. And whether or not I agree with the agreement, how it came to be in the first place, is neither here nor there.¶
22 23 24 25 But there have been no violations or breaches up to this point. And his affidavit that was filed, I'm just troubled by where it even came from. I mean, it's making specific allegations that the U.S. Attorney's Office is¶
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION¶
| Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM | Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06)24:2009 | Page 44 of 51 4 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 threatening a breach, and this is part of the motion to stay, | ||||
| 2 | which we're all battling here. | |||
| 3 | So I just wanted to indicate to the Court or remind | |||
| 4 | the Court that there have been specific allegations made, the | |||
| 5 | United States Attorney's Office is making these allegations of | |||
| 6 | breach, which we haven't heard any of the evidence of. | |||
| 7 | Thank you. | |||
| 8 | THE COURT: All right. | |||
| 9 | , did you want to respond to that Ms. | |||
| 10 | suggestion that there were other allegations of breach besides | |||
| 11 | the one that you've just mentioned today? | |||
| 12 | MS. No, Your Honor. : | |||
| 13 | THE COURT: Thank you. | I appreciate your giving me | ||
| 14 | the information, which I think has been very helpful today, and | |||
| 15 | I'll try and get an order out as soon as possible. | |||
| 16 | (Court adjourned at 11:10 a.m.). | |||
| 17 | CERTIFICATE | |||
| 18 | I hereby certify that the foregoing is an accurate | |||
| 19 | transcription of proceedings in the above-entitled matter. | |||
| 20 | ||||
| s/Larry Herr | ||||
| 21 | ||||
| DATE LARRY HERR, RPR-CM-RMR-FCRSC | ||||
| 22 | Official United States Court Reporter | |||
| 400 N. Miami Avenue | ||||
| 23 | Miami, FL 33128 - | |||
| (Fax) | ||||
| 24 | email: | Lindsay165@aol.com | ||
| 25 | ||||
| Quality Assurance by Proximity Linguibase Technologies |
| Case 9:08-cv-801 1 9-KAM | Document 180 | Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 | Page 45 ogje 45 |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | against 4:23,25 6:24 | 16:10 18:11 21:12 | B | 43:6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22:15 26:4 29:1 | 30:9 35:7 41:23 | breaches 7:15,17 | ||
| abide 27:15 | 42:25 | 42:16,20 | hack 12:18 36:2 39:7 | 19:11 21:11 22:16 |
| ability 18:8 19:1 | agency 34:23 | anyway 38:6 | backgrounds 39:21 | 43:22 |
| able 20:14 27:9 | apparently 32:20 | balance 12:15 | breaching 22:19,20 | |
| 32:18 34:5,15 | ago 31:17 37:14 | hank 32:10 | ||
| about 4:24 5:25 6:10 | agree 13:13 17:23 | appear 3:19 25:6 | based 6:12 10:7 12:6 | 22:23 39:21 |
| 6:18 9:2 11:15 | 25:25 26:7 27:9 | 42:18 | 13:11 17:4 34:4 | brief 15:18,23 |
| 13:22 20:25 21:13 | 37:18 41:23,24 | appearances 1:12 | 36:19 38:22 | briefing 5:4 |
| 23:13 25:23 27:2 | 43:19 | 3:3.25 | basically 7:16 13:10 | briefly 27:22 |
| 27:11,23 28:16 | agreed 17:9 20:2 | appears 27:2 | 39:5 | bring 29:22 40:7 |
| 30:24 32:2,2,3 | 21:15 25:16 | applicable 6:13 18:3 | basis 33:9 38:24 | broad 29:17 |
| 34:16 38:1,2,7,15 | agreement 5:2,2,11 | apply 20:6 28:9 | 40:3 | brought 15:1 20:2 |
| 38:19 39:12,12,20 | 5:15 6:2,23 7:16 | appointed 21:2 | battling 44:2 | 24:17,20 28:6 32:4 |
| 39:22 41:20,21,22 | 7:19 8:5,6 12:9 | appointment 25:15 | Beach 1:2,4,21 2:10 | 36:6 37:13.16 |
| 41:23 | 13:24 14:2,19 | 32:17 | 2:13 | 43:17 |
| 15:20 16:20 18:18 | appreciate 30:11 | Broward 2:15 | ||
| above 25:3 | 18:24 19:6,11,13 | 44:13 | before 1:11 6:5 | brush 29:17 |
| aim% e-entitled 44:19 | 19:18,24 20:1,10 | appropriate 19:21 | 15:13,18 24:10,11 | buffer 12:25 |
| Absolutely 29:11 | 20:18 21:7,16,23 | 24:7 | 24:13 40:4 | Burman 2:8,9 4:3 |
| access 30:19,19 | 22:8,11,17,19,20 | arbiter 38:8 | behalf 3:14 4:2,6 6:7 | 38:9 |
| 36:19 | 14:16 22:10 26:10 | |||
| according 19:21 | 22:23 23:18,19,20 | argue 18:1 22:1 | 26:15 30:3 39:3,4 | business 13:25 |
| accurate 44:18 | 24:1,9,23 27:25 | argued 12:22 | 42:17,22 | |
| accused 22:23 38:16 | 28:2,5,19,25 29:6 | argues 41:20 | being 9:17 10:6,21 | C |
| 39:1,2 | 29:7,25 30:2 31:2 | argument 36:5 | 23:19 26:4 28:19 | C 2:1 44:17,17 |
| action 7:13 8:5 9:8 | 31:11 32:6,8 33:3 | 41:23 | 29:19 34:15 39:1 | came 6:5 12:18 17:6 |
| 10:3,4,9,21 11:18 | 33:12,19 34:3,7,11 | arguments 34:6 | 41:23 42:4 | 18:22 33:25 43:20 |
| 15:4 17:24 18:17 | 34:13,25 36:20 | arise 7:5 | believe 3:18 5:10,10 | 43:24 |
| 20:2 21:22 27:10 | 37:8,11,15,23,24 | around 12:9 28:21 | 5:14,16 6:17,17,21 | camera 36:1642:15 |
| 29:23 40:7,16 43:8 | 38:4,5,5,12,16,19 | articulated 29:16 | 7:13,19 8:11 14:18 | cap 32:21 |
| actions 5:25 13:23 | 38:22 39:14,17,18 | asked 5:4,4 8:2 14:5 | 21:11 31:1,5 33:2 | capped 23:25 |
| 14:3 16:11 19:5,17 | 39:21 40:2043:1,6 | 30:25 42:1 | 33:5,13 37:6 38:23 | care 13:20,25 25:20 |
| 22:16 25:4 42:25 | 43:16,20 | asking 21:12 25:10 | 42:11 | 29:5 36:6 |
| activities 23:7 | ah 39:15,18 | asks 13:10 | believes 35:11 | case 1:3 5:17,20,21 |
| acts 9:11,12 37:14 | ahead 28:8 38:5 | aspect 28:12 | believing 38:24 | 5:22 6:4,7 8:12 |
| adual41:18 | al 1:4 | aspects 9:1,2 16:5 | 9:11 10:24,24 11:4 | |
| actually 5:21 17:9 | allegation 5:1 15:19 | assert 29:8 | beneficiaries 19:12 | 11:15,18 13:18,20 |
| allegations 4:25 16:6 | asserted 17:7 | beneficiary 20:1 | 14:18,22 15:1,18 | |
| Adam 1:13 3:4 | 37:14 43:25 44:4.5 | assertion 4:24 15:19 | 21:1625:15 | 16:2 19:17 22:17 |
| 29:13 | 44:10 | 15:22 | Bennett 3:18 | 22:25 23:4,8,8 |
| add 29:5 35:7 42:21 | alleged 17:17,25 | Assistant 2:15 | besides 44:10 | 24:17,20 26:3,4 |
| addenda 36:16 | 35:16 41:16,18 | associate 10:17 | between 8:6 9:23 | 28:10 29:4,6,9 |
| Adderly 3:17 | allow 11:8 31:23 | associated 18:12 | 13:1,21 19:14 | 30:4,22 33:5,6 |
| additional 29:22 | allowed 40:20 42:11 | 20:11 36:2 | ||
| address 29:15 | assurance 14:1 | beyond 13:16 | 34:13 37:21,23 | |
| addressed 33:15 | along 40:17 | assurances 12:5 | Biscayne 1:14 | 39:13 40:4,5,6 |
| adjourned 44:16 | already 22:5 | attached 43:4 | Bob 3:18 19:7 | cases 3:2 6:9 7:3,11 |
| Adler 1:17 | always 30:16 | attack 33:17 | Boehringer 1.20 | 8:13,22 9:3,5,5,15 |
| admit 20:3,18 25:11 | Amendment 6:24 | attention 15:1,22 | bond 25:22 | 10:3,11 12:1,2 |
| 32:23 36:8 | America 5:17 | A tterbury 2:12 | Boston 2:18 | 14:9 17:15,16 |
| admits 23:20 | amount 17:3,20 | attorney 2:15 7:1 | both 10:10 16:25 | 21:10 24:8,11 26:2 |
| admitted 23:17 24:9 | 23:25 24:3,9,16,24 | 19:4 27:17,18,19 | 35:11 | 29:18 30:12 33:17 |
| 41:19 | 25:3 32:19 | 32:12 35:14 | bought 28:22 | 37:9 40:2 |
| ado 23:13 | Amy 3:17 | attorneys 5:9 10:10 | Boulevard 1.14,17 | casts 9:13 |
| advantage 20:24 | Ann 2:14 4:9 | 11:8 32:14 36:3 | 2:15 | catastrophic 7:21 |
| adverse 18:18 | another 9:5 14:14 | 40:20 41:1 43:3 | Brad 3:7 42:22 | catch 7:21 10:2 |
| advice 12:7 | 18:11 40:11,14 | Attorney's 4:8,10 | BRADLEY 1:16 | caught 15:22 |
| answer 8:7 13:10 | 26:19 27:4 43:5,12 | breach 6:1,23 15:11 | cause 17:24 18:17 | |
| affidavit 43:2,4,23 | answered 42:2 | 43:25 44:5 | 26:5 40:7,16 | |
| afraid 32:4 | 16:3 18:24 19:6,13 | |||
| after 33:25 41:7,8,8 | anybody 11:14 | August 12:18 | 23:16 25:9,9 28:2 | caused 15:21 |
| afterwards 34:5 | anyone 14:16,19 | Australian 2:12 | 29:24 30:5 31:1,6 | causes 29:22 |
| again 9:10,18,22 | 17:5 22:13 24:17 | authorities 32:2 | 31:10 33:13,20 | cavalierly 12:13 |
| 10:19,20 18:5,9 | 24:24 29:12,24 | Avenue 1:21,23 2:12 | 37:7 38:8 39:2,19 | certain 8:22 11:18 |
| 23:18 26:1 30:2 | 30:9 42:20 | 2:23 44:22 | 44:1,6,10 | |
| 34:25 38:9,17 39:1141:4 | anything 8:22 11:15 13:22 14:2,7,20,25 | aware 6:6 13:14 15:4 a.m44:16 | breached 7:19 12:24 15:20 22:11 42:4 | 17:2,6 21:17 25:16 40:7 certainly 8:16 9:1 |
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 46 ogje 46¶
| 29:3 40:3.9 | committed 31:17 | course 7:5 24:25 | Davis 21:2 35:15 | 39:19,25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Certified 2:22 | communications | 26:21 27:12 30:4,6 | day 43:4 | discretionary 6:19 |
| certify 44:18 | 43:13 | 30:16 32:24,25 | deal 9:23 14:13,14 | 6:21 |
| change 7:25 | complainants 17:9 | 33:1 34:12 39:13 | 15:15 16:24,24 | discuss 9:22 23:6 |
| changes 7:8 | complaining 25:1 1 | |||
| 40:4 | 18:6,9 | discussing 42:4 | ||
| charges 5:3 | 26:19 | court I:I 2:22 3:1,6 | deals 36:14 | discussion 16:22 |
| chilling 9:7 | complaint 28:4 | 3:9,12,15,20,22,24 | dealt 6:19 16:25,25 | disingenuous 19:15 |
| chills 10:9 18:25 | 40:12 | 4:4,7,11,15,20 | decide 10:11 22:5 | dismiss 7:22 8:18 |
| 41:4 | compliance 12:14 | 5:11,14,18,19,21 | 37:7 38:8 | 10:14 20:4 27:24 |
| chime 26:9 | complied 41:9 | 5:246:6,11,13,14 | decision 39:1 I | 33:5,8,25 37:13,16 |
| chosen 29:21 | comply 41:10 | 6:18,20,21,22 7:6 | decisions 38:12,14 | 38:23 |
| circumstance 7:21 | concern 4:24 5:10,24 | 8:1 9:6 11:3,10,25 | deem 11:19 | disposed 40:2 |
| 8:18 18:4 | 9:20 16:1 22:8 | 12:19 13:1,10,16 | deemed 10:4 | dispute 38:7 |
| circumstances 9:25 | 25:24 26:1 39:23 | 14:5,11 15:5,13,15 | defend 5:25 10:11 | distinct 7:9 |
| 10:1,11 12:11,20 | concerned 13:22 | 16:10,13,22 19:2,9 | 11:18 12:1,2 22:17 | DISTRICT 1:1,1,11 |
| 12:21 13:8,13 16:8 | 23:10 27:11 37:25 | 21:12,25 23:18 | 22:18,22,25 24:2 | DIVISION 1:2 |
| 26:3 | docket 6:17 8:25 | |||
| 16:17 17:3,8,13,18 | 38:2,15,19 39:12 | 25:23 26:1,8,13,17 | ||
| 18:19 32:14 35:25 | 39:12 | 26:18,23 27:9,14 | defendant 1:8 2:8 | 12:14 |
| 36:8,9 38:25 39:7 | concerns 6:24 | 27:16,18,20 28:1,4 | 6:23 11:13 16:16 | documents 11:7 |
| 40:6,21,24 | conduct 22:14 | 28:4,11,13,14,16 | 22:15,18 27:10 | 14:24 |
| cite 17:10 | conducting 22:13 | 29:4,8,12 30:2,8 | 40:23 | Doe 1:4,15,18,22 2:3 |
| civil 4:23,25 5:25 7:3 | 30:5 39:13 | 30:16 32:22 33:22 | defendants 25:5 | 2:7 3:1,5,8,11 5:17 |
| 7:3,11 8:5,22 9:4,7 | confident 19:10 | 34:8,22 35:3,5,7 | 40:23 | 6:8,9,16 11:12 |
| 9:11 10:3,23,23 | consensual 16:25 | 36:16,19,21,22 | defendant's 16:23 | 21:5 29:14,22 33:5 |
| 13:23 14:3,9 15:7 | 36:25 37:1 | 37:4,6,19 39:9,10 | defending 4:25 7:24 | 35:13 42:22 |
| 16:5,11 19:5 20:20 | consider 6:14 18:1 | 39:25 40:4,12,14 | 9:4 10:2,23 13:18 | doing 8:9 29:9 34:9 |
| 22:14 26:25 27:10 | 23:16 35:2442:14 | 40:15,17 41.8,15 | 13:20,23 14:3,9,18 | 37:22 39:24 |
| 31:24 34:13,14,15 | constitute 13:18 | 42:8,12,20 43:15 | 15:18 16:2,10 | done 12:3,4 13:17.19 |
| 34:16 36:14 39:24 | 16:2 19:6 34:13,24 | 44:3,4,8,13,16,22 | 25:18 29:9 30:4 | 13:24 14:2,7,17.20 |
| 42:25 | construed 14:18 | court's 7:15 8:25 | 34:12 37:9 39:13 | 14:25 15:6 17:14 |
| claim 6:1 18:19 | contact 10:17 39:17 | 12:14 | defends 26:3 | 20:16 25:4 29:4 |
| 23:21,23 25:8 36:6 | contending 19:4 | covered 38:16 39:14 | defense 4:1,14 8:4,12 | 41:10 |
| 37:13,16 | contention 4:24 | create 9:25 | 9:3,12,14 10:9 | doubt 9:14 |
| claimed 40:25 | contentions 28:8 | creating 41:7 | 12:3 19:5,17 24:6 | dramatic 7:25 |
| claiming 25:9 | contest 17:12 18:7,8 | creative 17:23 | 24:18 27:22 28:11 | dramatically 7:8 |
| claims 22:15 23:22 | 24:18,21,23,25 | crimes 31:17 | 28:20 31:140:5 | dump 40:16 |
| 23:22 24:1,4,6 | 29:20 36:9 | 42:24 | ||
| criminal 8:21 20:15 | during 40:4 | |||
| 28:6 36:23,24 | contested 9:13 16:18 | 26:6 28:22 40:5 | denied 22:5 | |
| 40:13,15,17 | 16:25 36:25 | criteria 17:6 | deny 22:4,7 | E |
| clear 10:7 18:18 | contesting 20:6 25:2 | Critton 2:8,9 4:2,2 | depending 18:2 | E44:17,17 |
| 19:19 29:16 43:15 | 28:1 43:8 | 4:13 5:13 6:3,3 | 40:14 | each 17:24 18:16 |
| 43:15 | context 13:18,19 | 14:4 15:3,14 16:4 | depo 29:3 | East 1:17 2:15 |
| clearly 9:24 11:20 | 14:5 15:1 | 16:12,15 31:7 35:7 | depose 23:2 | 1:16 3:7.7 |
| 34:6 40:5,22 | contract 7:16 37:22 | 35:8 37:5,18 38:20 | deposition 11:11,12 | 5:16,20,23 42:22 |
| client 10:21 13:5 | contracting 9:23 | 39:23 41:16,25 | 14:23 22:24 34:20 | 42:22 |
| 23:2 24:3 26:15 | contrary 25:6 31:7 | crystal 29:16 | 39:16 | effect 9:7 17:5 |
| 28:3 33:25 40:10 | control 9:2 | cure 8:14,17 9:21 | depositions 10:13 | efforts 41:10 |
| 41:6 | convicted 20:14 | 13:6 | 14:22 19:20 22:12 | |
| clients 11:9 21:24 | 31:13,16 33:10,11 | cures 14:12 | 22:20 23:15 32:25 | 40:3,25 |
| 22:10,24 23:3 | conviction 20:8,15 | current 22:5 | 38:17 | elected 29:22 |
| 25:16 29:21 30:1 | 20:20 31:19 | cut 16:24 | desired 20:12 | eligible 31:20 |
| 36:3 38:22 | copy 28:4 36:13 | C.MA 1:24 3:14 | determine 9:8 | Elkins 1:20 |
| client's 29:3 | 41:25 42:6 | 17:16 24:11 26:10 | developed 32:11 | email 44:24 |
| cloud 9:14 | correct 5:12 23:1 | 26:15 40:11 | difference 36:13 | |
| Colvat 42:8,13 | 24:5 35:2 | different 6:5 12:21 | enforce 21:17 25:17 | |
| D | ||||
| come 8:8,13 13:11 | correspondence | 16:19 23:7 40:18 | enforcement 7:2 | |
| 21:1 23:6 32:13 | 30:21 | D 1:132:8 | direction 10:20 | enforcing 25:10 |
| 34:5 40:3 | counsel 3:3,4,7 12:7 | damages 17:3 23:23 | 27:14 | enter 40:20 |
| comes 18:12 | 16:5 23:13 26:8,25 | 23:25 24:3,10,24 | disadvantage 30:18 | entered 33:12 40:19 |
| coming 26:25 | 27:22 28:11,20 | 25:2 31:20 32:23 | disagree 20:5,21 | entire 5:15 20:25 |
| 32:24 33:9 36:10 | 36:15 | |||
| comment 41:22 | 29:13 36:17,22 | discovery 7:2,10,11 | ||
| comments 15:10 | 42:18 | 43:8 | 10:16,25 22:12 | entitle 11:23 |
| 35:11 41:14 | count 24:14 | date 13:12,14 44:21 | 29:4 30:5,21 33:1 | either 9:3 10:5 30:20 embarrassment 32:3 entitled 24:2 31:16 |
| commitment 17:2 | counts 17:17 41:8 | Datura 1:21 | 34:11,16,22 38:2 | 32:25 33:1 34:20 |
| Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM | Document 180 | Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 | Page 47 ogje 47 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| entry 6:17 8:25 | extraordinary 9:13 | form 11:4 | 7:18 8:1,2,7 9:21 | 35:6 38:20 41:13 | |
| 12:14 | 41:10 | Fort 1:182:16 | 10:8 11:19 12:6 | 42:10 44:12 | |
| enumerated 18:8,9 | extremely 31:4 | forth 36:2 | 13:1,2,2,9,11,13 | HONORABLE 1:1 I | |
| envisioned 40:22 | eyes 26:24 43:19 | forward 9:8 13:11 | 14:1,5 15:23 16:19 | hope 31:22 | |
| Epstein 1:7 3:1 4:3.6 | Ezell 2:5 3:16,17 | 17:6 19:1 21:1 | 17:11 18:4,12,17 | hopefully 13:3 | |
| 4:22 6:7 7:13,15 | e-mails 36:2 | 22:17 23:6 26:2 | 20:11,11 21:13,14 | 1:13,14 | |
| 7:19 8:6,20 9:15 | 29:7 41:4,12 | 23:10,11 25:11 | 3:4,4 29:13,13 | ||
| 9:18,24 10:1,6,10 | F | found 31:10 | 29:9 33:19 34:18 | 30:6 | |
| 12:5,15 13:17,21 | F44:I7 fact 7:1 8:11 11:19 | four 9:5 | 34:23 36:2,17 41:3 | horrible 21:23 | |
| 14:8 17:9 19:5.14 19:1620:11,13 | 14:20 28:4 30:11 | frankly 5:6 from 3:17 4:7 5:9 7:9 | 43:2 Government's 5:6,8 | humiliated 20:25 hypocritical 19:25 | |
| 21:8 23:13 24:21 | 33:20 40:6 | 10:20,24 13:9 | 7:25 9:10 12:20,23 | ||
| 25:16 26:3,23 | factors 11:23 | 14:13 15:9 16:23 | 15:16 18:22 25:13 | I | |
| 28:22 29:19,24 | fair 27:6 32:19,23 | 17:10 19:2 30:9 | 30:14 37:9 | idea 17:1 31:22 | |
| 30:20 31:9,13 | faith 38:24 39:8 | 32:13,13 34:22 | grant 22:4 | 11 1:22 3:11 | |
| 32:18,19,23 33:8 | familiar 42:5 | 35:10 37:22 41:4 | granted 22:2 | impact 16:18 | |
| 33:16 34:19 37:1 | families 32:5 | 43:2,24 | great 7:23 8:20 9:19 | important 41:24 | |
| 37:12 40:19 43:5,7 | far 14:25 21:17 | front 9:5 12:19 | 10:22 12:17 15:15 | impose 27:4 | |
| 43:9,13,18 | 23:10 24:24 30:3 | 25:10 42:3 | 20:8,24 | incident 24:14 | |
| Epstein's 4:24 5:9,24 | fashion 8:4 | fully 33:18 | ground 22:3 | incidents 17:25 | |
| 8:4 9:1 22:7 31:1 33:16 43:3,8 | favor 12:16 Fax 44:23 | further 29:10 future 9:12 10:5 | guess 36:17 38:6,7 guilty 17:11 41:8 | incredible 7:21 incredulous 19:15 | |
| equities 12:16 | fear 9:14 37:24 | 12:5 26:21,22 | indicate 44:3 | ||
| error 27:7,7 | federal 5:3 28:6 | H | indicated 30:13 | ||
| ESQ 1.13,16,20,23 | 29:21 31:13 32:22 | H 1:23 | indicates 43:3 | ||
| 2:1,5,8,8,11,14,17 | federally 2:22 31:15 | 1.7 | hand 32:9,9 41:25 | indict 7:20,20,22 | |
| /10 | fees 21:8,10 25:10 | 1:20,20 3:10 | hanging 11:19 | 8:13,16,17 12:10 | |
| essence 7:9,12 8:3 | few 35:8 43:18 | 3:10 27:20,21 | happen 14:13 22:6 | 12:24 15:10 18:23 | |
| 10:2 12:3 35:23 | field 7:8 | 28:15,18 29:11 gather 22:21 | happens 28:3 happy 30:16 36:13 | 21:14 | |
| 37:1 39:140:13,15 essentially 28:22 | Fifth 6:24 fight 32:24 36:10 | gave 16:1 | 36:21 | indicted 9:17 10:6 10:22 | |
| et 1:4 | file 21:4 28:13 30:22 | general 39:24 | harassing 39:16 | indictment 8:19 10:7 | |
| etc 2:9 34:21 | 32:22 35:18 38:18 | generally 10:22 | harassment 39:18 | individual 18:16 | |
| even 11:5,6,9 14:1 | 40:15 | getting 24:11 25:19 | harm 10:1 41:7 | 40:7 | |
| 15:17 16:1 17:22 | filed 5:11,16,21,23 | girls 20:7 23:5 25:20 | having 27:2,11 | individuals 10:18 | |
| 21:3,4 32:2 34:22 | 6:7,10 10:8 11:9 | 32:1 | 31:2441:7,8 | 17:1 35:15 37:3 | |
| 36:4 42:1043:24 | 15:18,23,24 20:20 | give 12:5 14:1 42:6 | hear 5:9 26:12 41:2I | information 22:21 | |
| event 5:24 | 28:3 30:21 33:4,6 34:1 35:17,19 36:1 | given 28:4 giving 44:13 | 42:2443:2,10 heard 19:2 41:13 | 44:14 initial 12:19 15:21 | |
| ever 5:11,14 everyone 30:3 42:3 | 36:24 37:15,19 | glaring 18:21 35:10 | 44:6 | initially 15:24 | |
| everything 15:7 | 38:23 40:9,12,13 | glasses 11:16 | hearing 1:10 4:21 | injury 10:23 23:22 | |
| 41:10 | 42:25 43:3,23 | go 12:10 15:13 22:17 | 30:2443:14 | innocent 27:5 | |
| evidence 25:1 44:6 | files 35:19,19,20 | 24:24 26:2 28:8 | held 33:9 | inquiries 30:13 | |
| exact 21:18,22 28:20 | filing 30:5 31:6 41:5 | 29:7 31:24 38:5,13 | help 30:11,16 32:15 | inquiry 7:15 15:16 | |
| exactly 10:24 | filings 7:8 | goal 32:17 | helpful 5:7 25:12 | instance 7:18,24 | |
| example 14:20 16:21 17:16 34:17 36:1 | filter 11:7 financial 23:12 | going 3:18 5:25 12:4 12:10 13:23,25 | 30:1442:7 44:14 her 26:4 28:4 | 9:18 10:10 11:3.17 13:5 16:14 | |
| 37:10,11 39:5 | find 5:6 6:13 19:15 | 14:11,13 15:18 | Herr 2:21 44:20,21 | instances 16:4 | |
| 40:11 | 19:25 23:11 29:24 | 16:2 19:5 22:4,6,9 | hesitant 32:1 | intended 28:21 | |
| except 8:20 11:25 | 39:20 | 22:18,23 23:10,14 | hey 22:19 | intent 21:19 | |
| exclusive 41:2 | firm's 6:6 | 23:24 26:5 28:8,11 | him 4:23 7:20,20,22 | intention 9:19 26:19 | |
| exclusively 28:6 33:7 | first 5:9 16:14 19:3 | 29:8 36:2 38:6,8 | 8:13,16,17 9:15,20 | 26:20,20 27:16 | |
| exists 13:15 | 26:18 30:23 43:20 | 38:12,13,16 39:10 | 11:23 12:5 21:14 | interest 23:12 | |
| expecting 43:1,11 | fit 36:4 | 39:15 41:22 43:1 | 21:15 25:10,11 | interested 13:17 | |
| expires 37:23 explicitly 37:12 | FL 1:15,18,21,24 2:3 2:6,10,13,16,23 | 43:12 Goldberger 2:11,12 | 26:4,5,13 28:24 38:1140:20 41:11 | 14:3 interpretation 16:20 | |
| expose 5:1,25 31:24 | 44:23 | 4:5,6 38:10 | 42:25 | 38:22 | |
| exposure 22:7 | Flagler 2:2,6,9 | gone 15:7 | himself 5:1,3 | interrogatories | |
| expound 43:12 | floor 32:21 | good 3:6,9,10,12,13 | Honor 3:10,13,16,2I | 14:24 19:20 | |
| express 34:10 | FLORIDA 1:1,4 | 3:15,16,22,23 4:4 | 4:2,5,9,13,17,19 | interrupt 37:4 | |
| expressly 37:22 | focused 15:15 | 4:5,9,11,16,18.20 | 5:13,16 6:4 12:12 | introduced 20:16 | |
| 39:14 extensive 29:4 | forced 19:17 foregoing 44:18 | 17:16 38:10,24 39:8 | 19:1,7 23:1 24:5 25:22,25 26:7,12 | intrusive 29:5 invasive 19:22 | |
| extent 28:10 | forgot 27:23 | Government 7:7,9 | 27:21 30:15 34:14 | investigated 31:14 | |
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 48 ogle 48¶
| investigation 10:18 limitation 25:2 43:17 need 24:22 25:23 K 38:2 43:7 limitations 36:4,7,11 mean 18:10 33:22 negotiate 32:18 Katherine 2:5 3:16 investigations 22:13 41:20 34:14 39:7 43:24 negotiated 27:3,3 keep 24:21 neither 43:21 limited 4:21 8:3 14:5 means 32:24 34:11 KENNETH 1:11 invited 27:6 17:12 20:19 23:25 members 4:13 never 11:9 26:20 key 32:9 involvement 6:6 30:19 memo 7:14 28:9 40:19.22 kind 30:10 36:12 irreparable 9:16 memorandum 27:23 limits 28:5 newspapers 23:5 39:11,22 Lindsay165@aol.c mentioned 44:11 nobody 11:14 10:1 41:7 knew 27:1 merits 22:1 ISIDRO 1:20 none 13:25 44:24 know 4:22 6:17 8:21 Mermelstein 1:14 non-contesting 28:5 issue 4:23 6:5,11,19 list 17:1,2,6 35:16 11:14 12:2 13:9,17 7:4 11:25 12:18,22 36:8 38:11 met 17:6 33:7 non-position 9:10 14:21 15:5,7 16:22 litigation 7:4,5 9:13 Miami 1:15 2:3,6,23 14:14 15:25 16:2 19:23 22:6 23:12 5:11 6:2 8:6 13:24 16:13,22 18:12,22 15:8 16:18,25 2:23 44:22,23 25:9 27:1 30:12,20 21.18 28:10,16 21:18 22:14 23:12 Michael 2:8 4:3 14:19 15:20 19:6 31:4 32:13 37:19 microphone 26:13 33:4,14,24 42:8,23 31:24 33:16 34:3,9 22:8 24:1 27:25 39:10,1741:17,21 might 14:2,12 22:14 42:24 34:15,15,16 36:25 knowing 26:25 38:5 issued 14:25 36:25 39:24 29:5 37:16,17 knowledge 5:13 issues 4:21 24:10,13 lives 21:21 million 17:21 33:12,18,19 34:3.6 13:11 long 31:1737:14 minimum 17:3 25:3 25:21,23 35:9 34:10 36:19 37:11 known 21:4 32:14 longer 20:7 36:15 39:25 40:3 37:2 43:1,6,16 knows 11:3 13:2 minimums 24:25 issuing 22:20 39:19 look 12:14 18:6 non-2255 24:4,6 i.e41:1 minors 20:7 normal 30:4 39:13 36:16 L minute 18:13 41:14 North 1:23 2:9,23 looked 6:11 lack 41:22 mistakes 13:4 ladies 20:23 21:3,20 J 1:16 M money 17:20 24:15 Lake 1:24 Jack 2:11 4:5 M 1:20 more 8:3 17:23 notice 8:13,16 9:21 language 18:14 jackpot 32:9 MA 2:18 23:25 30:25 39:12 13:6 14:23 22:24 32:11 jail 41:7 made 15:10,17 16:6 42:7 31:8,8 39:6,16 LARRY 2:21 44:21 Jane 1:4,15,18,22 morning 3:6,9,10,12 20:12 31:20 43:13 noticed 14:22 Las 1:17 2:3,7 3:5,5,7,11 44:4 3:13,15,16,22,23 notification 15:3,4 last 33:22 41.24 major 11:25 5:17 6:8,9,16 4:4,5,9,11,16,18 16:8 Lauderdale 1:18 make 8:21 13:4 11:12 21:4 29:14 4:20 NPA 8:5,11,15,24 2:16 29:22 33:5 35:13 15:21 19:19 23:8 most 7:7 13:3 15:24 9:1,9,16,19,22 law 7:1 27:24 28:9 42:22 23:13 26:2,18 18:21 32:12 35:10 10:4,19,22 11:20 lawsuit 25:18,19 Jay 2:20 4:18 27:24 29:1,16 34:5 41:24 12:8,15,24 13:7.15 lawsuits 30:17 Jeffrey 1:7 37:12 38:12,13 39:11 motion 1:10 4:22 6:7 14:10 16:8 18:14 lawyers 8:21 9:4,7 jeopardize 9:15 41:14 12:22 15:24 20:4 20:22 21:19,19 10:23,23 17:22 jeopardy 15:17 making 42:7 43:9,24 22:6 27:24 33:4,14 27:1 38:10.1 1.21 join 26:11,15 44:5 24:18,20 25:2,7 33:15,25 34:2,11 40:23 Josefsberg 2:1,2,5 man 12:24 35:12,24 36:14,14 37:15,20 38:2,23 lay 8:10 mandate 7:24 8:20 3:18,20,21,23 19:7 39:8 41:5 42:23 least 35:10 19:7,10 21:25 23:1 8:21 10:3 42:1,2,3 43:4 44:1 leave 33:17,19 number 15:9 16:21 24:5 25:25 26:7,11 many 20:23 31:3 motions 10:14 17:15 Lefkowitz 2:20 4:18 26:12,16 27:13 35:17 42:1 21:5 30:5 35:21 17:7,9,14,21,24 4:18 Marie 2:14 4:9 31:6 32:17 33:6 38:18 32:1 35:15,20 left 10:2 35:14 39:3 41:13 MARRA 1:11 move 7:22 8:18 19:1 legal 10:13 24:10,13 Martin 2:17 4:16 41.1642:10,16,17 19:20 21:17,21 35:21 38:12 40:3 Master 21:2 32:16 0 43:17 37:12 41:5 43:9 matter 20:15 37:13 Josefsberg's 33:25 moving 9:7 33:8 object 7:2,10,10 legally 40:7 objection 36:18 35:11 36:5 44:19 41:4,12 legitimate 38:7 JR 2:8 matters 21:11 much 23:13 30:16 less 41:14 Judge 1:11 15:12 may 3:3 5:1 7:2,10 30:25 42:7 obligation 21:9 let 5:9 13:10 19:19 21:2 29:13 35:15 multiple 18:15 40:15 9:9,12 10:4,17 30:12 31:8 letter 17:10 21:19 obtain 11:7 40:16 42:8,12 11:19 13:17,18 letters 16:6 judgment 22:16 multitude 8:12 obviously 10:20 14:18 15:12 16:18 liability 17:12 18:7,7 June 1:5 13:12 16:19 17:12 19:8 myself 16:5 42:17 34:18 20:3,6,16,19 23:16 jurisdiction 28:1,6 19:16 20:4 21:11 occurred 17:25 23:17,20 24:8,18 N just 18:23 20:15,16 21:17,21 23:6 occurs 26:21 24:22,23 25:6,11 N44:,, 22:3,6 24:20 26:1 27:22 30:20 32:14 off 39:8 29:20 32:23 36:9 names 11:9 23:5 offender 41:9 29:15,16 30:23 34:17 35:16,20 40:22 41:1 35:8 37:8,10 39:24 39:6 40:8,16 41:6 43:6 offense 18:8,10,15 liable 33:9 narrow 42:24 40:4,17 42:24 41:13,13 33:10,11 like 7:16 13:9 25:21 nature 27:6 maybe 12:17 13:10 43:14,23 44:3,11 37:16 40:4 17:20 30:10 42:8 necessary 22:22 41:5 offered 37:2 limit 23:23 24:2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| non-prosecution 5:2 | |||
| 28:2,5,19,25 29:25 | |||
| 31:11 32:6,8 33:2 | |||
| nothing 13:15 24:12 | |||
| 23:9 24:12,15,16 | |||
| 39:3 41:4,6,11,18 | |||
| numerous 23:21 | |||
Display truncated; use Text to download the complete prepared source.¶