EFTA00229667.pdf

Front Sent To: Subject August 29, 20111:58 PM RE: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159) Hello Benjamin, Yes, that is correct. The investigations concerning Epstein, personally, arc the matters your office is recused. The CVRA matters, while stemming from matters involving Epstein, arc matters brought be other individuals and those matters may remain with your office. Please let me know if you would like to further discuss or if you have any questions, Thank you, Assistant General Counsel General Counsel's Office Executive Office for United States Attorneys 501 Third Street NW, Room 5500 Washington, D.C. 20530 Phone: 202.252.1576 - New Phone Number Fax: 202.252.1650 - New En Number Email: aMP4821' From: Sent: Monde Au u 11 12:26 PM To: Subject RE: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159) Hi Richard, I hope the storms and Irene haven't affected you too badly. I wanted to make sure I am correct that this recusal from any new criminal investigation into does not affect SDFL's handling of the CVRA civil case pending before Judge Marra. I believe that Lee had discussed the potential for recusal in the CVRA matter with GC a while back and I am fairly certain that I discussed this with Jay earlier this year at the Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013248 EFTA00229667 NAC. In both instances, the resolution was that our Office could and should handle the CVRA matter. I wanted to make sure that is still the case. Thanks Richard. From: Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:32 PM To: Ferrer, Mired() A. (USAFLS); O Cc: Subject: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159) MEMORANDUM FOR: Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida First Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Florida Robert E. O'Neill United States Attorney Middle District of Florida First Assistance United States Attorney Middle District of Florida THROUGH: General Counsel Executive Office for United States Attorneys FROM: Assistant General Counsel Executive Office for United States Attorneys 2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013249 EFTA00229668 RE: Office-Wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida from the Investigation and Potential Prosecution of Mr, Jeffery Epstein (GCO File No. REC-I1-4159) THIS IS FORMAL NOTICE that David M, Associate Deputy Attorney General (ADAG), approved the office-wide recusal of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) from all matters, to include the investigation and potential prosecution, relating to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual activities with minor females. The ADAG authorized this recusal in accordance with United States Attorney's Manual (USAM) 3-2,170 and United States Attorney's Procedures (USAP) 3-2.170.001 based upon existing conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest pertaining to the matter. ADAG has assigned this matter to the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 515(a), has directed and authorized United States Attorney Robert E. O'Neill to conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida is authorized by law to conduct regarding this matter. See USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(C)(2)(b). Each office should communicate directly with each other concerning the investigations related to this matter in accordance with the procedures outlined in USAP - . 70.001(6)(C)(2Xb)(3). The point of contact for the Middle District of Florida is Criminal Chief who can be contacted at (81 274-6000. The oint of contact for the Southern District of Florida is First Assistant United States Attorney who can be reached at (305) 961-9029. All Assistant United States Attorneys subsequently assigned to this matter must be appointed as Special Attorneys in order to appear on behalf of the government in the Southern District of Florida. See USAM. 3- 2.300 and USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(C)(21(b). Please contact Nicole West, EOUSA Personnel Staff, Policy and Special Programs Division, at (202) 252-5625 to obtain the appointments. In accordance with USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(CX21(b)(3), any Special Attorney assigned the matter or case should sign any pleadings or documents using the signature block of the Middle District of Florida, with the addition of the Attorney General's name preceding that of the United States Attorney. Ifis have any questions relating to this recusal matter, please contact Assistant General Counsel General Counsel's Office, EOUSA, at (202) 252-1576. Thank you. Thank you, Assistant General Counsel General Counsel's Office Executive Office for United States Attorneys 501 Third Street NW, Room 5500 Washington, D.C. 20530 Phone: 202.252.1576 - New Phone Number 3 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013250 EFTA00229669 Fax: 202.252.1650 - New Fax Number Email: 4 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013251 EFTA00229670 From: Sent: To: Subject: Thanks Richard. I appreciate it. Ben Wednesda Au ust 24 2011 7:29 PM RE: Recusal matter From: Seniaiiiiii 24, 2011 :11 PM To: Subject: RE: Recusal matter 1 kilo Benjamin, I just wanted to update you on the recusal matter involving the matter with Mr. Epstein. The MDFL has agreed to take the case. I will send out the formal notice shortly. Tha n From: Sent: Wednesd A st 03, 2011 10:20 AM To: Subject: RE: Hello We have analyzed facts of your recusal inquiry and sent a recusal request to the ADAG. I will keep you updated on the status of the request. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Thanks FrOr liMr Sent: Thursda Jul 28 20 1 6:52 PM To: Subject: Hi Richard, 1 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013252 EFTA00229671 Attached is a memo outlining (probably in exponentially more detail than you wanted) the background of the Jeffrey Epstein case and some of the reasons why it would probably be best for another district to handle any future investigation. As I mentioned, venue may lie in multiple districts, which may make it easier on whichever district ultimately handles the investigation. Thanks as always. First Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 (305) 961-9029 « File: Epstein Conflict Memo amended.wpd » 2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013253 EFTA00229672 From: Sent: Monde , Au ust 29, 2011 2:08 PM To: Subject: RE: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159) Great. Thanks Richard. From: Sent: Monde Au ust 29, 2011 1:58 PM To: Subject: RE: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159) Hello Benjamin. Yes, that is correct. The investigations concerning Epstein. personally, are the matters your office is recused. The CVRA matters, while stemming from matters involving Epstein, are matters brought be other individuals and those matters may remain with your office. Please let me know if you would like to further discuss or if you have any questions. Thank you, Assistant General Counsel General Counsel's Office Executive Office for United States Attorneys 501 Third Street NW. Room 5500 Washington. D.C. 20530 Phone: 102.252.1576 - New Phone Number Fax: 202.252.1650 - New Fax Number Email• vh A! 4c (41'64S' From: (USAFLS) Sent: Mon y, August 29, 2011 12:26 PM 1 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013254 EFTA00229673 To: Sub : RE: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159) Hi I hope the storms and Irene haven't affected you too badly. I wanted to make sure I am correct that this recusal from any new criminal investigation into E stein does not affect SDFL's handling of the CVRA civil case pending before Judge Marra. I believe that a had discussed the potential for recusal in the CVRA matter with GC a while back and I am fairly certain that I discussed this with lay earlier this year at the NAC. In both instances, the resolution was that our Office could and should handle the CVRA matter. I wanted to make sure that is still the case. Thanks {Metro. el. From: Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:32 PM To: Ferrer Wifredo A. (USAFLS); O' • aniagi) Cc: David (WAG) OMD); Subject: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159) MEMORANDUM FOR: Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida First Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Florida Robert E. O'Neill United States Attorney Middle District of Florida First Assistance United States Attorney Middle District of Florida THROUGH: General Counsel 2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013255 EFTA00229674 Executive Office for United States Attorneys FROM: Assistant General Counsel Executive Office for United States Attorneys RE: Office-Wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida from the Investigation and Potential Prosecution of Mr. Jeffery Epstein (GCO File No. REC-1 I 4159) THIS IS FORMAL NOTICE that David M, Associate Deputy Attorney General (ADAG), approved the office-wide recusal of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) from all matters, to include the investigation and potential prosecution, relating to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual activities with minor females. The ADAG authorized this recusal in accordance with United States Attorney's Manual (USAM) 3-2.170 and United States Attorney's Procedures (USAP) 3-2.170.001 based upon existing conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest pertaining to the matter. ADAG has assigned this matter to the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 4 515(a), has directed and authorized United States Attorney Robert E. O'Neill to conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida is authorized by law to conduct regarding this matter. See USAP 3-2.170.001(61(O(2)(b). Each office should communicate directly with each other concerning the investigations related to this matter in accordance with the procedures outlined in - 0.001(6XO(21(b)(3). The point of contact for the Middle District of Florida is Criminal Chief who can be contacted at (813 274-6000. The oint of contact for the Southern District of Florida is First Assistant United States Attorney who can be reached at (305) 961-9029. All Assistant United States Attorneys subsequently assigned to this matter must be appointed as Special Attorneys in order to appear on behalf of the government in the Southern District of Florida. See USAM. 3- 2.300 and USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(CX2)0). Please contact Nicole West, EOUSA Personnel Staff, Policy and Special Programs Division, at (202) 252-5625 to obtain the appointments. In accordance with USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(CX2)(bX3), any Special Attorney assigned the matter or case should sign any pleadings or documents using the signature block of the Middle District of Florida, with the addition of the Attorney General's name preceding that of the United States Attorney. ii s have any questions relating to this recusal matter, please contact Assistant General Counsel General Counsel's Office, EOUSA, at (202) 252-1576. Thank you. Thank you, Assistant General Counsel 3 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013256 EFTA00229675 General Counsel's Office Executive Office for United States Attorneys 501 Third Street NW, Room 5500 Washington, D.C. 20530 Phone: 202.252.1576 - New Phone Number Fax: 202.252.1650 - New Fax Number Email: 2usikisgoy 4 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013257 EFTA00229676 From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesda , Au ust 03, 2011 12:47 PM To: Cc: Sanchez, Eduardo (USAFLS); Stamm, Edward (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Atkins a on, Karen (USAFLS); ■ Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS); Nucci, Edward (USAFLS); IMI Subject: Re: Great. Thanks Richard. From: Sent: Wedn 03, 2011 10:20 AM To: (USAFLS) Sub ect: RE: Hello Benjamin, We have analyzed facts of your recusal inquiry and sent a recusal request to the ADAG. I will keep you updated on the status of the request. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Thanks From: (USAFLS) Sent: urs 1 6:52 PM To: Subject: Hi Richard, Attached is a memo outlining (probably in exponentially more detail than you wanted) the background of the Jeffrey Epstein case and some of the reasons why it would probably be best for another district to handle any future investigation. As I mentioned, venue may lie in multiple districts, which may make it easier on whichever district ultimately handles the investigation. Thanks as always. Ben First Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 1 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013258 EFTA00229677 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 (305) 961-9029 « File: Epstein Conflict Memo amended.wpd » 2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013259 EFTA00229678 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:32 PM Ferrer, Wifredo A. (USARS); O'Neill, Robert (USAFLM); (USAFLM) David (ODAG) (JMD); (USARS); FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159) MEMORANDUM FOR: Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida First Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Florida Robert E. O'Neill United States Attorney Middle District of Florida First Assistance United States Attorney Middle District of Florida THROUGH: General Counsel Executive Office for United States Attorneys FROM: Assistant General Counsel 1 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013260 EFTA00229679 Executive Office for United States Attorneys RE: Office-Wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida from the Investigation and Potential Prosecution of Mr. Jeffery Epstein (GC° File No. REC-I14159) THIS IS FORMAL NOTICE that David MI, Associate Deputy Attorney General (ADAG), approved the office-wide recusal of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) from all matters, to include the investigation and potential prosecution, relating to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual activities with minor females. The ADAG authorized this recusal in accordance with United States Attorney's Manual (USAM) 3-2.170 and United States Attorney's Procedures (USAP) 3-2.170.001 based upon existing conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest pertaining to the matter. ADAG has assigned this matter to the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 515(a), has directed and authorized United States Attorney Robert E. O'Neill to conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida is authorized by law to conduct regarding this matter. See USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(C)(2)(b). Each office should communicate directly with each other concerning the investigations related to this matter in accordance with the procedures outlined in - 0.001(6)(C)(2X6)(3). The point of contact for the Middle District of Florida is Criminal Chief who can be contacted at ( t of contact for the Southern District of Florida is First Assistant United States Attorney who can be reached at (305) 961-9029. All Assistant United States Attorneys subsequently assigned to this matter must be appointed as Special Attorneys in order to appear on behalf of the government in the Southern District of Florida. See USAM. 3- 2.300 and USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(C)(2)(14 Please contact Nicole West, EOUSA Personnel Staff, Policy and Special Programs Division, at (202) 252-5625 to obtain the appointments. In accordance with USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(O(2)(b)(3), any Special Attorney assigned the matter or case should sign any pleadings or documents using the signature block of the Middle District of Florida, with the addition of the Attorney General's name preceding that of the United States Attorney. is have any questions relating to this recusal matter, please contact Assistant General Counsel , General Counsel's Office, EOUSA, at (202) 252-1576. Thank you. Thank you, Assistant General Counsel General Counsel's Office Executive Office for United States Attorneys 501 Third Street NW, Room 5500 2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013261 EFTA00229680 Washington, D.C. 20530 Phone: 202.252.1576 - New Phone Number Fax: 202.252.1650 - New Fax Number Email: 3 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013262 EFTA00229681 From: Sent Frida . Ju 29, 2011 4:35 PM To: (USAFLS) Subject Re: Thank you, I am out of the office today and will review this on Monday. Thanks again. Rich From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda Ju 28 2011 06:52 PM To: Subject: Hi Richard, Attached is a memo outlining (probably In exponentially more detail than you wanted) the background of the Jeffrey Epstein case and some of the reasons why it would probably be best for another district to handle any future investigation. As I mentioned, venue may lie in multiple districts, which may make it easier on whichever district ultimately handles the investigation. Thanks as always. Ben First Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 (305) 961-9029 «Epstein Conflict Memo amended wpd» Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013263 EFTA00229682 From: Sent To: Subject: Great. Have a good weekend. From: Sent Ju 29 2011 4:35 PM To: (USAFLS) Sub : Re: (USAFLS) Frida , Ju 29, 2011 4:43 PM RE: Thank you, I am out of the office today and will review this on Monday. Thanks again. Rich From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda Jul 28 2 I 06:52 PM To: Subject: Hi Richard, Attached is a memo outlining (probably in exponentially more detail than you wanted) the background of the Jeffrey Epstein case and some of the reasons why it would probably be best for another district to handle any future investigation. As I mentioned, venue may lie in multiple districts, which may make it easier on whichever district ultimately handles the investigation. Thanks as always. Ben First Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 (305) 961-9029 «Epstein Conflict Memo amended.wpd» 1 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013264 EFTA00229683 From: (USAFLS) Sent Thursda Jul 28 2011 6:52 PM To: Attachments: Epstein Conflict Memo amended.wpd Hi Richard, Attached is a memo outlining (probably in exponentially more detail than you wanted) the background of the Jeffrey Epstein case and some of the reasons why it would probably be best for another district to handle any future investigation. As I mentioned, venue may lie in multiple districts, which may make it easier on whichever district ultimately handles the investigation. Thanks as always. Ben First Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 (305) 961-9029 «Epstein Conflict Memo amended.wpd» Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013265 EFTA00229684 Memorandum Subjccl Re: Jeffrey Epstein Investigation Dale July 26, 2011 To , First Assistant U.S. Attorney From I. Introduction This memorandum summarizes the conflict of interest related to the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") of additional crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). The memo begins with a brief overview of the original investigation of Epstein, dubbed "Operation Leap Year"; summarizes the resolution of Operation Leap Year by the Southern District of Florida; and addresses the events following the resolution of Operation Leap Year, including the basis for the conflict. Lastly, the memo briefly addresses the additional crimes that the FBI wants to investigate. II. "Operation Leap Year" The investigation of Jeffrey Epstein initially was undertaken by the City of Palm Beach Police Department in response to a complaint received from the parents of a 14-year- old girl, from Royal Palm Beach. Whe and another girl began fighting at school because the other girl accused of being a prostitute, one of the school principals intervened. The principal searched urse and found $300 cash. The principal asked where the money came from. initial! claimed that she earned the money working at "Chik-Fil-A," which no one believed. then claimed that she made the finiliinitted that she had been paid $300 to give a massage to a man on Palm Beach island. parents approached the money selling drugs; no one believed that either. Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD") about pressing charges. PBPD be an investi atin t e ' • e massage, Jeffrey Epstein, and two of his assistants, and . PBPD identified 27 girls who went to Epstein's house to perform "massage services" (not including one licensed massage therapist). The girls' ages ranged from 14 years' old to 23 years' old. Some girls saw Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013266 EFTA00229685 Epstein only once and some saw him dozens of times. The "massage services" performed also varied. Some girls were fully clothed while they massaged Epstein; some wore only their underwear; and some were fully nude. During all of these massages, Epstein masturbated himself and he would touch the girl performing the massage, usually fondling their breasts and touching their vaginas — either over their clothing or on their bare skin. Epstein often used a vibrator to masturbate the girls and digitally penetrated a number of them. For the girls who saw him more often, Epstein duated to oral sex and vaginal sex. Epstein sometimes brought his assistant/ irlfriend, into the sexual activity. One of the girls described as Epstein's "sex slave". On October 18, 2005, PBPD obtained a search warrant with the assistance of the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office ("PBSAO"). By this time, PBSAO had already been contacted by Epstein's cadre of lawyers. When PBPD arrived at Epstein's home two days later (10/20/05) to execute the search warrant, they found several items conspicuously missing. For example, computer monitors and keyboards were found, but the CPUs were gone.' Similarly, surveillance cameras were found, but they were disconnected and the videotapes were gone. Nonetheless, the search did recover some evidence of value, including message pads showing messages from many girls over a two year span. The messages show girls returning phone calls to confirm appointments to "work." Messages were taken by three of Epstein's "personal assistants." Photographs taken inside the home showed that the girls' descriptions of the layout of the home and master bedroom/bathroom area were accurate. PBPD also found massage tables and oils, the high school transcript of one of the girls, and sex toys. In sum, the PBPD investigation showed that girls from Royal Palm Beach High School would be contacted by one of Epstein's assistants to make an appointment to "work." Up to three appointments each day would be made. The girls would travel to Epstein's home in Palm Beach where they would meet Epstein's chef and Epstein's assistant—usually - --in the kitchen. The assistant would escort the girls upstairs to the master bedroom/bathroom area and set up the massage table and massage oils. The girl sometimes was instructed to remove her clothing. The assistant would leave and Epstein would enter the room wearing a robe. He would remove the robe and lie face down and nude on the 'During a meeting, two of Epstein's attorneys, Gerald Lefcourt and Lilly Ann Sanchez, admitted that attorney Roy Black instructed Epstein to have the CPUs removed although they insisted that those instruction were given well in advance of the execution of the search warrant — not in response to a "leak." 2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013267 EFTA00229686 massage table. Epstein would then instruct the girl on what to do and would ask her to remove her clothing. After some time, Epstein would turn over, so that he was lying face up. Epstein would masturbate himself and fondle the girl performing the massage. When Epstein climaxed, the massage was over, and the girl was instructed to get dressed and to go downstairs to the kitchen while Epstein showered. Epstein's assistant would be in the kitchen and the girl would be paid—usually $200—and if it was a "new" girl, the assistant would ask for the girl's phone number to contact her in the future.' Girls were encouraged to find other girls to bring with them. If a girl brought another girl to perform a "massage," each girl would receive $200. Each time a girl returned to the house, Epstein would pressure the girl to go further sexually, advancing to oral sex and sexual intercourse. Epstein would pay more for these acts — in the words of one girl, "the more you do, the more you make." The PBPD investigation consisted primarily of sworn taped statements from the girls. When PBPD began having problems with PBSAO, they approached the FBI. The investigation was formally presented to the FBI and to the U.S. Attorney's Office after PBSAO "presented" the case to a state grand jury and the state grand jury returned an indictment charging Epstein only with one felony count of solicitation of [adult) prostitution. After the matter was presented to the U.S. Attorney's Office and there was a determination that federal statutes had been violated, FBI, ICE, and the U.S. Attorney's Office opened files. The federal investigation focused on the interstate nexus required for all of the federal violations, so a number of grand jury subpoenas were issued for telephone records, flight manifests, and credit card records. The federal agents also re-interviewed some of the girls. The agents delved into Epstein's history and interviewed other girls and obtained records to corroborate the girls' stories. FBI also interviewed girls who came forward after the PBSAO indictment was reported in the papers and the additional girls identified through those interviews. The attempt to handle secretly the federal case was doomed from the start when the Chief of the Palm Beach Police Department gave a letter to each of the victims identified through his investigation telling them that, because of his disappointment in the way that the PBSAO had handled the case, the matter had been referred to the FBI. Almost immediately, Epstein's attorneys began calling to request a meeting with the U.S. Attorney's Office. When one attorney was unable to schedule a meeting, Epstein hired another attorney who called up the chain of command until someone agreed to a meeting. 'Sometimes Epstein made the payment and asked for the phone number, sometimes it was the assistant. 3 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013268 EFTA00229687 Between January and May 2007, an indictment package was prepared, charging Epstein and three of his personal assistants with a number of child exploitation offenses. The case agent made several appearances before the grand jury. Attorneys for Epstein made several presentations to the U.S. Attorney's Office to convince the Office not to prosecute, and made allegations of prosecutorial misconduct against the line Assistant and the First Assistant U.S. Attorney. Epstein also challenged the legal analysis behind the prosecution, both within the U.S. Attorney's Office (up to the U.S. Attorney) and to the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section at the Justice Department. All of Epstein's challenges were considered and rejected. HI. The Resolution of "Operation Leap Year" On September 24, 2007, Epstein signed a Non-Prosecution Agreement wherein the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida promised not to prosecute Epstein for the crimes that were the subject of the grand jury investigation if: (1) he pled guilty to two crimes in state court — the state felony prostitution charge and a state charge of procuring minors into prostitution, which would require Epstein to register as a sex offender; (2) he were sentenced to at least 18 months' imprisonment, and (3) he agreed to pay damages to the victims of his offenses. After signing this Agreement, Epstein and his counsel decided that they were dissatisfied with its terms, and again complained to the Justice Department, seeking review to the Deputy Assistant Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. After those attempts also failed, on June 30, 2008, Epstein entered his guilty plea in state court and began serving his sentence. IV. Post-Resolution Events A few days before the plea and sentencing (in state court those occur on the same day), the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling the matter contacted counsel for three of Epstein's identified victims and informed him of the upcoming court date, encouraging his clients to attend and be heard. They did not appear. On July 7, 2008, two of those victims filed suit against the United States in federal court claiming that their rights had been violated under the Crime Victims' Rights Act because they had not been consulted before the Office entered into the Non-Prosecution Agreement. (This will be referred to as the "CVRA Action.") After an initial flurry of activity, the Petitioners obtained a copy of the confidential Non-Prosecution Agreement, and the Court ordered that it be shared with all of the identified victims. After it was provided, the Petitioners and most of Epstein's victims focused on their 4 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013269 EFTA00229688 civil suits against him. In 2009, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Fort Lauderdale initiated an investigation into a Ponzi scheme operated by Scott Rothstein through his law firm. As part of his Ponzi scheme, Rothstein told investors that his law firm represented several of Epstein's victims and that Epstein was willing to pay huge sums of money to avoid exposing his criminal activities. The attorney representing the victims in the CVRA Action, Brad Edwards ("Edwards"), worked at the Rothstein firm. Epstein sued Edwards, alleging that Edwards was part of the Ponzi scheme, and alleging that Edwards' attempts to subpoena some of Epstein's high-powered friends were done to increase the value of the Ponzi scheme, rather than for legitimate discovery purposes. In the summer of 2010, most of the civil suits against Epstein were settled, including the suits filed by the two victims in the CVRA Action. All of the settlements were confidential, so it is unknown how much each of the victims received. In September 2010, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra, who handled most of the civil cases and the CVRA Action, issued an Order closing the CVRA Action. Almost immediately thereafter, the Petitioners filed a Motion to Reopen, stating that they had obtained discovery through their civil suits against Epstein that showed that the U.S. Attorney's Office had violated their rights as victims. For several months, attempts were made to resolve the matter. In short, the victims have asked that the U.S. Attorney's Office disavow the Non-Prosecution Agreement, on the basis that the CVRA was violated, and bring charges against Epstein. Edwards has said that one of his clients repeatedly calls and asks him when Epstein is going to jail. One of the other attorneys on the case has suggested that emails he considers to be embarrassing to the Office will not be disclosed if we re-open our investigation of Epstein and prosecute him. Herein lies the conflict. If the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida re-initiates a grand jury investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, it will be perceived — correctly or incorrectly — as having been done at the insistence of the victims in the CVRA Action. And Epstein will allege that any prosecution arising therefrom will have been undertaken in an effort to resolve the CVRA Action, not based upon the merits of the investigation itself. I. The FBI's Current Investigation 5 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013270 EFTA00229689 The main focus of the FBI's current investigation is a victim, =, who refined to speak with agents during the "Operation Leap Year" investigation. Based upon her debriefing, Epstein engaged in several additional crimes in the Southern District of Florida and, more important! in several other Districts, with and other minor females. Epstein transported n his private airplanes to engage in sexual activity with him. Epstein also "pimped" to several of his other important friends, and transported her to those sexual encounters. This activity was not part of the initial investigation. also reported that, during the "Operation Leap Year" investigation, she was contacted by Epstein's investigators, lawyers, and Epstein himself, and offered payment to remain silent when contacted by the police. FBI agents are seeking grand jury subpoenas at this time to corroborate statement. They also are asking for permission to approach one of Epstein's "personal assistants," who was served with a target letter during the "Operation Leap Year" investigation, to give her a "de-target" letter and interview her. There are several other Districts that may have jurisdiction over the additional crimes under investigation. Epstein lived and still lives in the Southern District of New York; he engaged in sexual activity with in the S.D.N.Y.; and it is believed that he made the calls from the S.D.N.Y. to wherein he offered to pay her to keep her from speaking to law enforcement. When Epstein would fly into and out of New York, however, he used the airport in Teterboro, New Jersey, so the District of New Jersey also has jurisdiction over charges related to traveling in interstate commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct and transporting minors in interstate commerce. reported that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with her on his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands and also had her engage in sexual activity with one of his friends on that island, so the District of the Virgin Islands also would have jurisdiction. also reported frequent sexual activity with Epstein in the District of New Mexico and the Central District ofCalifornia. In both of those Districts there is evidence (from or other witnesses) of Epstein engaging in illegal sexual activity with other underage victims, as well. 6 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013271 EFTA00229690 From: Sent To: Subject: Frida , December 17, 2010 12:45 PM RE: Request for Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation As your office is, from my understanding, will be looking to have this CVRA suit dismissed, consistent with DoJ's position in other similar cases, under 12(b)(6) or equivalent because the plaintiffs did not have rights under the CVRA as no formal charge was filed, there is not, at present, a need for your office to be recused. If/when this changes and more substantive work may be involved (e.g. if a judge does not dismiss under this procedural bar), we can revisit. Have a good holiday. - Peter From: 16, 2010 4:28 PM To: Subject: Re: Request for Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation Peter, That is correct. From: 16, 2010 02:43 PM To: Subject: RE: Request for Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation I take it by your schedule, that nothing is pressing on this allowing it to be handled, if recusal is necessary, the week leading up to New Year's (27-30'1)? - Peter From: USAEO-GCO Duty Sent: Thursda Decem r 16, 2010 11:15 AM To: Cc: Subject FW: Request for Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013272 EFTA00229691 Peter- Please see duty matter below. Thank you. Lorene Froa Th p... Sent: urs ay, ember 16, 2010 10:38 AM To: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Jacobus, Wendy (USAFLS) or Advice and Guidance on Potential Office-Wide Recusal - Crime Victims Rights Litigation We are seeking guidance and advice from EOUSA General Counsel on whether this Office can continue to represent the government in the defense of a Crime Victims Rights Act lawsuit, Jane Does 1 and 2'. United States, Case No. 08.80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D.Fla.), in light of a request by Paul Cassell, counsel for the victims, asking for an investigation of this office into what they claim is a "suspicious" criminal case and potential improper influence of this Office. In 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein, a multi- millionaire investor living in Palm Beach, was enticing underage girls into prostitution. Epstein was alleged to have paid underage girls to provide him with massages, while the young girls were unclothed. The case was referred to the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office, and the FBI began its own investigation. Epstein hired a number of highly-paid attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, to attempt to stave off criminal charges. Ultimately, in 2007, Epstein was charged in state court with soliciting minors for prostitution. In September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein, in which he agreed to plead guilty to the state criminal charge, and serve a sentence of 18 months. Epstein also agreed that, in any civil action under 18 U.S.C. 2255 by the underage victims, he would not raise the lack of a federal sex offense as a defense. In July 2008, Epstein plead guilty, and was sentenced to serve six months at the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, followed by 12 months in home detention. In July 2008, after the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been executed, two victims, TM and CW, filed an action under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. They claimed that the government was obligated, under 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(5), to speak with the victims prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. An emergency hearing was held on July 11, 2008, before U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra. Since Epstein had entered his state court plea and been sentenced already, the court found there was no emergency. He directed the parties to meet and determine if there were any factual disputes and whether an evidentiary hearing would be necessary. Attorney Brad Edwards initially represented the victims. Soon, he was joined by Paul Cassell, a University of Utah law professor, and former federal judge who served in the District of Utah from 2002-2007. Cassell is a victims' rights advocate who has appeared in many cases throughout the United States. The victims' rights suit was inactive for the next two years, with Edwards and Cassell using the civil suit as a means to attempt to gain access to information helpful in their civil actions for damages against Epstein. They were able to obtain a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement through the civil litigation. In August 2010, the district court, noting that the last civil suit had been settled, entered an order closing the case. Edwards and Cassell immediately filed documents with the court, advising that the case should not be closed or dismissed, and they wanted to pursue final action by the court. Since September 2010, AUSA and I have been dealing with Cassell and Edwards on how to resolve the case. They claim the victims had a right to be consulted prior to the execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and that we 2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013273 EFTA00229692 violated the CVRA by not consulting them. The remedy they seek is a set aside by the court of the Non- Prosecution Agreement, and a prosecution of Epstein. On December 10, 2010, United States Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer, First Assistant M e and I, met with Cassell, Edwards, and CW, one of the victims. We discussed the posture of the case, and CW told us her views of what occurred and her desire to see Epstein receive justice for what he did. Cassell presented U.S. Attorney Ferrer a four-page letter, requesting an investigation of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution. A copy of Cassell's letter is attached. He claims there may have been improper influence exercising by Epstein, noting that Epstein is a "politically-connected billionaire." Cassell cites to an alle ed ti off to Epstein that a search warrant on his residence was to be executed; that a former AUSA, left the West Palm Beach office and soon began appearing on behalf of individuals aligned with Epstein; and an unprecedented level of secrecy between the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, where the FBI was purportedly kept in the dark about the impending Non-Prosecution Agreement. He also claims that the victims were deceived regarding the existence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Cassell's request for an investigation was referred to DOJ OPR on December 16, 2010. We are concerned whether the victims' allegations of potential misconduct by our office, that we were improperly influenced by a wealthy individual into granting an extremely generous agreement sparing him federal prosecution, might be a basis for questioning our office's impartiality in defending the Crime Victims Rights Act lawsuit. While our litigating position is that the CVRA rights do not attach under a formal charge is filing, much of the undercurrent of the litigation, particularly from the victims' viewpoint, is deceptive and improper conduct by officials in the U.S. Attorney's Office. I am at the NAC today. I will be going on my Christmas vacation starting tomorrow, December 17. I can be reached by e-mail at all times, and also can be reached at all times at (786) 564-9114. I will be back at my office on December 29. Thanks for your assistance. Ethics Advisor Southern District of Florida « File: cassell_OPR.pdf » 3 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013274 EFTA00229693 U . S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 'Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E.4" Street Miami, FL 33132 PAUL G. CASSELL Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law Telephone. 801.585.5202 cassellprglaw.utah.edu December 10, 2010 Re: Request for Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Prosecution Dear Mr. Ferrer: I am writing as someone with extensive experience in the federal criminal justice system — as a former Associate Deputy Attorney General, Assistant United States Attorney, federal judge, and currently criminal law professor — to alert you to what seems to be the most suspicious criminal case I have ever encountered. I ask that you investigate whether there were improper influences and actions during your office's criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, particularly regarding the decision to enter into a binding non-prosecution agreement blocking his prosecution for numerous federal sex offenses he committed over many years against more than thirty minor girls. As I am sure you are well aware, in 2006 your office opened a criminal investigation with the FBI into allegations that for years Jeffrey Epstein sexual abused dozens of minor girls in his West Palm Beach mansion. The FBI soon developed compelling evidence that Epstein had in fact committed numerous federal sex offenses with more than 30 minor girls. And yet, your office ultimately entered into a plea arrangement which allowed Epstein escape with a non- prosecution agreement that ensured he would have no federal criminal liability and would spend no more than 18 months in state jail. For sexual offenses of this magnitude — in a case with more than 30 witnesses providing interlocking testimony, all made automatically admissible by virtue of Fed. R. Evid. 414 — this is an extraordinary outcome. Why did your office enter into this highly unusual non-prosecution arrangement with Epstein? Suspicion begins with the point that Epstein is a politically-connected billionaire. But that wouldn't be troubling without considerable other evidence that something went terribly wrong with the prosecution for other, improper reasons. Consider the following highly unusual facts: First, it appears that Epstein was tipped off before the execution of a search warrant at his home. We know that lead state police officers -- Detective Recarey and Police Chief Michael Reiter -- complained that the house was "sanitized" by the time they arrived to serve a search warrant for child pornography. This sanitation was evident by the various computer wires hanging with no computers attached. Housekeeper Janusz Banasiak later testified In a civil 84112-1) P-013275 EFTA00229694 deposition that Epstein's assistant, d another man (unknown) were instructed to remove, and did in fact remove, multiple computers from Epstein's home shortly before the search warrant was served. The fact that there could well have been a tip off is apparently suspected by federal authorities. Second, there is evidence that one of the senior prosecutors in your office joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability — and improperly re resented people close to Epstein. During the federal investigation of Epstein, was a senior Assistant U.S. Attorney in your office. As we understand things, he was a direct supervisor of the line prosecutor handling the case and thus was well aware of details of the Epstein investigation and plea negotiations. We further believe that he was consulted on issues related to the prosecution of Epstein and Epstein's co-conspirators, including specifically issues related to whether Epstein employees and pilots should be prosecuted for their Involvement in Epstein's sexual offense. We further believe that he personally and substantially participated in making such decisions about the course of the criminal investigation. Within months after the non-prosecution agreement was signed by your office, left your office and Immediately went into private practice as a white collar criminal defense attorney. His office coincidentally happened to be not only in the same building (and on same floor) as Epstein's lead criminal defense counsel, lack Goldberger, but it was actually located right next door to the Florida Science Foundation -- an Epstein-owned and -run company where Epstein spent his "work release." While working in this office adjacent to Epstein's, undertook the representation of numerous Epstein employees and pilots during the civil cases filed against Epstein by the victims —cases that involved the exact same crimes and exact same evidence being reviewed by the U.S. Attorney's office when he was employed there. Specifically, he represented= (Epstein's number one co-conspirator whowas actually named as such in the NPA), his housekeeper (Louella Ruboyo), his pilots Larry Morrison, Larry Visoski, David Rogers, William Hammond and Robert Roxburgh. (Hammond and Roxburgh were not deposed but the others were.) Our understanding is that his representation of these individuals was paid for, directly or indirectly, by Epstein. was well aware of what evidence your office and federal investigator had collected against Epstein and about the minor girls who were his victims. As a consequence, he knew what evidence the attorneys for the victims were using. He also knew what each of those witnesses had said, if anything, to federal and state investigators during the criminal investigation. We have been unable to place our fingers on the federal regulations governing such later representation. We do know, however, that such actions appear to be in direct contravention of the Florida ethical rules regarding attorneys who leave government employment. For • 2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013276 EFTA00229695 example, Florida R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.11(a) provides la) lawyer shall not represent a private client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee unless the appropriate government agency consents after consultation." Similarly, Florida R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.11(b) provides that la] lawyer having information that the lawyer knows is confidential government information about a person acquired when the lawyer was a public officer or employee may not represent a private client whose interests are adverse to that person in a matter in which the information could be used to the material disadvantage of that person." Both these rules appear to have been violated. But entirely apart from the details of ethical rules, the fact that one of your prosecutors was involved in making Important decisions about the scope of criminal liability for Epstein and his associates and then — after criminal liability was significantly limited — representing numerous people at Epstein's behalf raises serious questions. At the very feast, there is the strong appearance that Reinhard may have attempted to curry favor with Epstein and then reap his reward through favorable employment. At the very worst, there may have been advance discussions — we simply don't know at this point. Third, Epstein appears to have deliberately kept from victims in the case correspondence with your office and the Justice Department that might have shed light on improper influences. Along with other capable attorneys, I was involved in representing one of Epstein's victims (S.R.) who filed a federal civil case against Epstein. Suspecting that Epstein may have improperly influenced your office, we immediately served discovery requests on Epstein for all the correspondence with your office regarding the plea negotiations. Eleven months of hard litigation ensued, in which Epstein made every conceivable argument against production. Finally, late in June of this year, his appeals exhausted, Epstein produced the correspondence to us. However, in violation of the court order, he redacted the correspondence so that he provided only emails and other statements from your office — not his emails and statements to your office. More significantly, even though he was under court order to produce all correspondence between his attorneys and your office, Epstein secretly withheld • correspondence by several of his most high-powered attorneys — namely Ken Starr and Lilly Ann Sanchez. Epstein settled the case with S.R. within days after this limited production, and we did not realize the absence of what must have been critical discussions between your office and Starr and Snachez (among others). Epstein's refusal to allow us to see that information raises the suspicion in our minds that there must have been unusual pressures being brought to bear during the plea discussions that would have been revealed had Epstein complied with his production obligations. Fourth, there appears to have been an unprecedented level of secrecy between your office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this case. The FBI was responsible, along with state and local police agencies, for building the case against Epstein. They appear to have developed an overwhelming criminal against him. And yet, when your office signed the non- prosecution agreement with him, it is not clear to us that the FBI was consulted about this decision. Indeed, we have suspicions that the FBI was not informed of this decision until, perhaps, months later. 3 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013277 EFTA00229696 Supporting this suspicion is our on-going litigation regarding the treatment of the victims in this case. As you know from our draft pleadings that we have discussed with your office, we believe there is compelling evidence that the victims and their attorneys were deceived about the existence of a non-prosecution agreement for months in order to avoid what certainly would have been a firestorm of controversy about such lenient treatment of a repeat sex offender. Our impression from the evidence we have been able to obtain so far is that the FBI was similarly kept in the dark — not consulted about or even told about the NPA. While a certain amount of tension has always existed between federal prosecuting and investigating agencies, not even informing the FBI about the Epstein NPA seems highly unusual. All of these strange facts — as well as the facts that we are alleging in our crime victims' litigation — lead us to think that there was something rotten with the way this case was handled. Epstein could have faced years and years in prison for numerous federal sex offenses. And yet he managed to contrive to walk away with no federal time at all (and only minimal state time). We respectfully ask you to investigate through appropriate and independent channels the handling of the Epstein (non prosecution. Thank you in advance for considering this request. I would be happy to provide any other additional information that would be useful to you. • Sincerely, Pau Cassel • 4 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013278 EFTA00229697