Epstein Data Wiki

Doe v. United States (CVRA litigation)

Properties2
tagscase, cvra, southern-district-of-florida, victims-rights, non-prosecution-agreement
aliasesDoe v. United States, CVRA litigation, 08-80736-CIV-MARRA

30 min read

CaseJane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, filed as In re: Jane Doe12
CourtU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida1
DocketNo. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson, later 9:08-cv-80736-KAM12
JudgeKenneth A. Marra, United States District Judge2
FiledJuly 7, 20081
Petitioners’ counselBrad Edwards; later also Paul G. Cassell and John Scarola13
StatuteCrime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 37711
RulingFebruary 21, 2019: partial summary judgment for the petitioners “to the extent that Petitioners’ right to conferral under the CVRA was violated”; the court added that it was “not ruling that the decision not to prosecute was improper”2
DispositionSeptember 16, 2019: remaining relief denied, attorney’s fees denied, judgment entered, case closed4
Related appealIn re Wild (11th Cir.), mandamus denied en banc April 15, 20215

Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), was an action under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, in which pseudonymous victims of Jeffrey Epstein contended that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida had violated their statutory rights by negotiating and signing the 2007 non-prosecution agreement without conferring with them.12 It was filed on July 7, 2008 and closed on September 16, 2019, and was heard throughout by Judge Kenneth A. Marra.14 On February 21, 2019 Judge Marra granted the petitioners partial summary judgment to the extent that their right to confer under the Act had been violated, while stating expressly that he was not ruling that the decision not to prosecute Epstein was improper.2 After Epstein’s death mooted the principal remedy sought, the court denied the remaining relief on September 16, 2019, denied attorney’s fees, entered judgment and closed the case, writing that rulings made during the litigation “likely played some role, however small it may have been,” in the charges later brought in the Southern District of New York.4

Background

In a letter to Epstein’s counsel Kenneth W. Starr, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida wrote: “Although time is of the essence (I understand that certain filings are due to our Office no later than December 7th and that certain events must take place no later than December 14th), I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday at 5 p.m., to provide you with time to review these options with your client.”6 The letter asked for “a written decision by this Friday at 5 p.m., indicating whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm, or to unwind, the Agreement.”6 The letter’s signature page carries a manuscript signature above the typed title “UNITED STATES ATTORNEY”; the typed name beneath the signature is covered by a black box.6 The copy of the letter cited here bears no date on any of its seven sheets, and this page does not supply one.6 A second copy of the same letter in the release carries an outgoing facsimile transmission banner across the head of every one of its sheets, reading 12/04/07 with the day, the time, the sending office name and the fax machine’s own page counter.7 That banner is a transmitting machine’s record: it supports saying the letter went out on December 4, 2007, and it is not a statement of when the letter was written. When the letter was composed is not settled here. The two copies, and the correspondence around them, are set out at The December 2007 victim notification letters.

The petition

The petition was filed in the Southern District of Florida on July 7, 2008, captioned In re: Jane Doe, and was signed by one lawyer, Brad Edwards of the Law Office of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC, as attorney for the petitioner.1 It stated that the petitioner had as a minor been the victim of federal offences committed by Epstein in Palm Beach County, that Epstein was the subject of a federal investigation and had pleaded guilty in state court on June 30, 2008, and that the government was in plea negotiations with him that might resolve the matter “in the next several days.”1 It alleged that the petitioner had received no consultation about the disposition of the charges, no notice of court proceedings, no information about restitution and no notice of her rights under the Act, and asked the court to order the U.S. Attorney to comply with the Act before any agreement with Epstein.1 The action later proceeded under the caption Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States.2 Paul G. Cassell and John Scarola appear as counsel for the petitioners in later filings; the May 10, 2019 submission on remedies carries a signature block listing Bradley J. Edwards, Paul G. Cassell and John Scarola as attorneys for the petitioners.3

The United States responded with a declaration by the Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to the Epstein investigation, A. Marie Villafaña, filed with the clerk on July 9, 2008 and entered on the docket on July 15.8 At paragraph 6 the declaration stated that “[a]n agreement was reached in September 2007” and that it “contained an express confidentiality provision.”8 At paragraph 7 it stated: “Although individual victims were not consulted regarding the agreement, several had expressed concerns regarding the exposure of their identities at trial and they desired a prompt resolution of the matter.”8

Jurisdiction and the interlocutory rulings

The government contested the court’s jurisdiction. Its sealed motion to dismiss [Document 119] argued that the petitioners lacked Article III standing, because the injury they alleged could not be redressed by a favourable decision, and that their claims were not constitutionally ripe.9 Discovery was stayed pending a ruling on the motion by an order entered November 8, 2011 [Document 123].10 On June 18, 2013 Judge Marra denied the motion and lifted the stay of discovery.10

While the motion to dismiss was pending, the court permitted the petitioners to propound requests for admission, and on December 1, 2011 they served their first request for admissions to the government, twenty-six numbered requests, several with lettered sub-parts.11 Request No. 5 asked the government to admit that “during negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein regarding the non-prosecution agreement, it was the position of at least one experienced attorney within the U.S. Attorney’s Office that the Crime Victims’ Rights Act required notifications to the victims in this case.”11 The government’s response, Document 213-1, entered on the docket July 19, 2013, admitted “that, during the negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein regarding the non-prosecution agreement, at least one experienced attorney within the USAO subscribed to the position that the CVRA required notifications to the victims in this case and that position was communicated to Epstein’s counsel,” while objecting, to the extent the request sought admissions about positions not communicated outside the office, “as violative of the deliberative process privilege.”12

In its February 21, 2019 opinion the court summarised six holdings it had made earlier in the case: that rights under the Act attach before the government brings formal charges; that the Act authorises the rescission or reopening of a prosecutorial agreement, including a non-prosecution agreement, reached in violation of the conferral obligation; that § 3771(d)(5) authorises the setting aside of pre-charge prosecutorial agreements; that the reasonable right to confer extends to the pre-charge stage of criminal investigations and proceedings; that the federal sex offences involving minors alleged against Epstein made the petitioners crime victims under the Act; and that the government’s equitable defences were to be resolved after a full evidentiary record.13

The 2015 joinder motions

Two further pseudonymous victims, identified as Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4, moved on December 30, 2014 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to join the action; a corrected version of that motion was entered on January 2, 2015.1415 The existing petitioners then moved under Rule 15 to amend their pleadings and add the two as petitioners.14 The government opposed both motions.14

Judge Marra denied both in an order signed April 6, 2015 and entered on the docket the following day.14 He held that the addition of parties raising claims the movants themselves described as duplicative would not materially advance the litigation on the merits, and that the two could participate as fact witnesses without being named parties; the original petition, he noted, already alleged violations of the rights of “other similarly-situated victims.”14

In the same order the court struck material from the record on its own motion under Rule 12(f).14 It held that the factual details in the Rule 21 motion about non-parties were “immaterial and impertinent” to the claim that the movants were known victims to whom the government owed duties under the Act, and struck the passages concerning them, together with specified paragraphs of two supporting declarations and two filings in their entirety.14 Alan M. Dershowitz, a non-party named in that material, had moved on January 5, 2015 to intervene for the limited purpose of striking it and seeking a show-cause order against the lawyers who filed it; because the court struck the material itself, it denied his motion as moot.1614 The court declined to issue a show-cause order, saying that striking the material was sanction enough while cautioning counsel about their obligations under Rule 11, and recorded that the movant remained free to reassert the details on proper evidentiary proof if a good-faith basis for their relevance were shown.14 A supplemental order of April 7, 2015 restricted the affected docket entries from public access and permitted the petitioners to re-file the partly stricken documents with the stricken portions omitted.17

The privilege rulings, July 6, 2015

With the stay of discovery lifted, the government produced part of what the petitioners sought and withheld the rest on claims of privilege. The three privilege logs it filed, the victims’ line-by-line objections to them and the government’s answer are at The 2013 privilege logs in the CVRA litigation. Judge Marra resolved those claims in an opinion and order entered on July 6, 2015, whose reasoning and ordering paragraph are set out at Operation Leap Year. Twenty-six of the order’s fifty-one pages are the Table it directs the government to produce documents in accordance with. The Table is headed “Detail of Privilege and Relevancy Holdings” and set in three columns: a Bates range, the “Ruling on Privilege or Relevancy,” and a “Comment (as necessary).” An explanatory footnote on its first page gives the numbering: the first digit is the box number, an “S” marks material identified in the supplemental privilege logs, and the figures after the colon are page ranges.18

Most rows withhold the material, by grand jury secrecy, by opinion work product privilege, or by both. A minority order production, and several of those concern the correspondence between the government and Epstein’s counsel. Against ranges in the supplemental logs the court wrote, in identical terms row after row: “The portions of the email chain from Epstein’s counsel are not privileged. The Government must certify that this outside correspondence has been produced.”19 The requirement to certify recurs on the same pattern elsewhere in the Table: against one range the court held that an attorney’s handwritten notes were protected but that “the underlying correspondence is not and should be produced” and that “The Government must certify that Petitioners have been provided the correspondence”; against another it held that two documents were “correspondence documents sent to victim’s counsel. No privilege applies,” with the same direction to certify.20

Where the Table ordered production it gave its reason in the comment column. Of one range it said the material was fact-based, “not opinion work product as it does not reveal the mental impressions of counsel,” that the petitioners had “a compelling need for the information contained therein,” and that “This need also outweighs any deliberative-process privilege that may apply.”21 Two rows order the release of victims’ identities, in one case because the document “bears no indication that it was directly related to grand jury presentation” and did not exhibit counsel’s mental impressions, and in the other because the document “Contains nothing other than the written name of one victim”; in each case the court directed that the petitioners be provided with the identities under an appropriate protective order, and in the second that they “should be made aware that this victim was known to the Government.”22

The February 21, 2019 ruling

The petitioners moved for partial summary judgment on February 10, 2016; the United States cross-moved.232

Judge Marra ruled on February 21, 2019. It was undisputed, he held, that the government had entered into the agreement without conferring with the petitioners during its negotiation and signing, and had instead sent letters asking the victims for “patience” with the investigation after the agreement was made: “At a bare minimum, the CVRA required the Government to inform Petitioners that it intended to enter into an agreement not to prosecute Epstein.”2 Because the agreement bound the government once Epstein performed, the petitioners should have been notified before it was signed, when they could still have provided input.2 “Particularly problematic,” the court wrote, “was the Government’s decision to conceal the existence of the NPA and mislead the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility.”2 It rejected the government’s reading of the statute as obliging prosecutors only to answer victims’ inquiries, and its argument that the 2015 amendment adding a right to be informed of plea and deferred-prosecution agreements excluded non-prosecution agreements by implication.2 It also rejected the contention that a victim who had made statements favourable to Epstein early in the investigation fell outside the Act.2

The court did not reach the questions of what the victims were told about the state court proceeding, or the government’s estoppel arguments, holding that once the government failed to advise the victims of its intention to enter into the agreement a violation had occurred and that estoppel went only to remedy.2 On the government’s prosecutorial-discretion argument it wrote: “The Court is not ruling that the decision not to prosecute was improper. The Court is simply ruling that, under the facts of this case, there was a violation of the victims rights under the CVRA.”2

The order granted the petitioners’ motion “to the extent that Petitioners’ right to conferral under the CVRA was violated,” denied the government’s cross-motion, denied two discovery motions without prejudice, and directed the parties to report within fifteen days on how they wished to proceed on the question of remedy.2 After the order the Department of Justice recused the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida from the litigation and assigned the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia to handle the case.24

Remedies and the final order

The petitioners sought a series of remedies: rescission of the provisions of the agreement barring prosecution of Epstein and of his named and unnamed alleged co-conspirators; a declaration that the Constitution would permit such a prosecution; injunctions requiring the U.S. Attorney’s Office to protect and confer with victims; a meeting with representatives of the current and former U.S. Attorney’s Office including former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta; a court hearing for victims; production of government material including grand jury records and Federal Bureau of Investigation files; training for the office’s employees on the Act; and monetary sanctions, restitution, attorney’s fees and costs.4 A request for a letter of apology was withdrawn.4 The government argued that these remedies were not authorised by the Act, said that it should have communicated more effectively with the petitioners, and proposed instead that the Department designate a representative to meet the victims, that it take part in a public proceeding at which they could make impact statements, and that all criminal prosecutors in the district undergo further training on the Act and on victims’ rights.4 Epstein, who had been permitted to intervene on the question of remedy, opposed rescission before his death.4

Judge Marra decided the remedy question on September 16, 2019. Epstein’s death, he held, left no Article III controversy in which rescission could be considered, and rescission as to the alleged co-conspirators would be an advisory opinion, since they were not parties and any judgment purporting to affect their rights would not bind them; the validity of the non-prosecution provision as to them would have to be litigated in any criminal proceeding actually brought against them.4 He denied injunctive relief, finding no real and immediate threat of repeated violations; declined to order a meeting with Acosta, over whom the court had no jurisdiction, or to convene his own hearing for victims, noting that the judge presiding over the New York criminal case had already given them that opportunity; declined to order production of privileged material, FBI files relating to a continuing investigation, or grand jury records; and declined to order training the government had already undertaken to provide.4

The court held that the Act does not authorise damages, that sanctions are directed at conduct during litigation rather than conduct preceding it, and that the Act itself does not authorise restitution against the United States, so that petitioners would have to point to a specific statute authorising it.4 It denied attorney’s fees, finding that although the government had been unsuccessful on the merits it had asserted “legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation” and had not litigated in bad faith.4 The order records that the petitioners were “not receiving much, if any, of the relief they sought,” and that the litigation had brought national attention to the Act and had resulted in the Department acknowledging its shortcomings in dealing with crime victims; the court added that rulings made during the case “likely played some role, however small it may have been, in the initiation of criminal charges against Mr. Epstein in the Southern District of New York and that office’s continuing investigation of others who may have been complicit with him.”4 It directed the clerk to unseal two docket entries, denied a motion to strike, declared the order a judgment under Rule 58, and closed the case.4

In re Wild in the Eleventh Circuit

On September 30, 2019 counsel for the petitioners sought mandamus in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for one of the victims, seeking review of the order denying the requested remedies; the appellate proceeding is reported as In re Wild.2425 The government’s brief argued that the obligations imposed by the Act do not attach before charges are brought, and therefore had not been triggered in the Southern District of Florida; at oral argument, however, it conceded that the U.S. Attorney’s Office had not been “fully transparent” with the petitioner and had “made a mistake in causing her to believe that the case was ongoing when in fact the NPA had been signed.”24

A divided panel denied the petition on April 14, 2020, holding that rights under the Act do not attach until a defendant has been criminally charged.2524 On August 7, 2020 the court granted rehearing en banc and vacated the panel opinion.2426 Sitting en banc, the court denied the petition on April 15, 2021: while the Act permits a victim to move for relief within an existing proceeding and to pursue administrative remedies, “it does not authorize a victim to seek judicial enforcement of her CVRA rights in a freestanding civil action.”5

The Office of Professional Responsibility investigation

The Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility opened its investigation before the February 2019 ruling. After the Miami Herald published Julie K. Brown’s investigative series on November 28, 2018, Senator Ben Sasse wrote to the office on December 3, 2018 asking it to investigate possible misconduct by Department attorneys, and on February 6, 2019 the Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs advised him that an investigation had been opened.24 After the district court ruled on February 21, 2019, the office included within the scope of that investigation the conduct underlying the court’s findings.24 It identified Acosta, three former supervisors in the office and the line Assistant U.S. Attorney as subjects; all five cooperated.24

The report, issued in November 2020, concluded that Acosta’s decision to resolve the federal investigation through the agreement was within his discretion and did not amount to professional misconduct, but constituted poor judgment.24 On the letters sent to victims after the agreement was signed, it determined that none of the subjects was responsible for them: they were sent by an FBI administrative employee using standard form language, and the statement that the matter was “under investigation” was not false, because the government continued to investigate in anticipation that Epstein might not perform.24 It found nonetheless that the letters “risked misleading the victims” by failing to give important information about the status of the investigation.24 That finding is in narrower terms than the district court’s, which described the government as having misled the victims to believe federal prosecution was still a possibility.242

On victim consultation, the report records that Villafaña told the office she had raised the government’s obligation to confer at an early meeting with Acosta and two supervisors and was instructed, “Don’t talk to [the victims]. Don’t tell them what’s happening,” but that she was not told why and could not recall who gave the instruction; in a later interview she recalled being told that plea negotiations were confidential and could not be disclosed, and believed that instruction may have come from Acosta.27 None of the three recalled such a meeting, and one disputed the account through counsel.27 The office did not reach a conclusion on whether the meeting and instruction occurred.27

Use in the Maxwell prosecution

Ghislaine Maxwell moved in February 2021 to dismiss her superseding indictment on the ground that the non-prosecution agreement’s undertaking not to charge Epstein’s “potential co-conspirators” bound the United States outside the Southern District of Florida and covered her.26 The motion drew on the record of this litigation: it cited In re Wild for the length and extent of the agreement’s negotiation, and cited a privilege log the government filed in this case as indicating that the Southern District of Florida had involved the Southern District of New York in its investigation of Epstein and that its attorneys had travelled to New York to interview and subpoena witnesses there.26

Paul Cassell, counsel for the petitioners here, addressed the court at the August 27, 2019 hearing in the Southern District of New York that preceded the dismissal of the Epstein indictment after his death, urging the judge to publish his remarks and to refer to the Act in them.28 In declining, three weeks later, to convene a proceeding of his own for victims, Judge Marra noted that the judge presiding over the New York case had already provided that opportunity.4

Documents

DocumentDescription
EFTA00215606Victim’s emergency petition for enforcement of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, Document 1, July 7, 2008
DOJ-OGR-00004697Declaration of A. Marie Villafaña in support of the United States’ response, Document 14
DOJ-OGR-00000305United States’ sealed motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
EFTA00591894Order denying the motion to dismiss and lifting the stay of discovery, Document 189, June 18, 2013
DOJ-OGR-00003736Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4’s corrected Rule 21 motion for joinder, Document 280
EFTA02755706Order denying the Rule 21 and Rule 15 motions, Document 324, signed April 6, 2015
EFTA01657752Opinion and order on the privilege claims, Document 330, July 6, 2015
EFTA00184224Petitioners’ consolidated statement of undisputed facts and motion for partial summary judgment, Document 361
EFTA00027666Opinion and order granting partial summary judgment, Document 435, February 21, 2019
EFTA00027776Petitioners’ position on procedures for determining a remedy, Document 452, May 10, 2019
EFTA02758614Opinion and order on remedies, judgment and closure, Document 478, September 16, 2019
DOJ-OGR-00002533Executive summary of the Office of Professional Responsibility report, November 2020
DOJ-OGR-00000290The non-prosecution agreement, filed as an exhibit in this case and in the New York criminal case

Timeline

DateEvent
June 30, 2008Epstein pleads guilty in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County1
July 7, 2008Petition filed as In re: Jane Doe; signed by Brad Edwards alone1
July 2008The court holds a hearing on the petitioner’s request for relief, four days after filing4
July 15, 2008Villafaña declaration entered on the docket8
August 14, 2008Petitioners’ counsel seek production of the agreement rather than pressing to invalidate it4
November 8, 2011Order entered staying discovery pending a ruling on the government’s motion to dismiss [Document 119]; the stay order is Document 12310
June 18, 2013Motion to dismiss denied; stay of discovery lifted10
December 30, 2014Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 move under Rule 21 to join; corrected motion entered January 2, 20151415
January 5, 2015Dershowitz moves for limited intervention16
April 6–7, 2015Joinder and amendment denied; material struck under Rule 12(f); supplemental order restricts the affected docket entries1417
July 6, 2015Opinion and order on the privilege claims; the appended Table directs production of specified material, including correspondence with Epstein’s counsel, and requires the government to certify that it has been produced1819
February 10, 2016Petitioners move for partial summary judgment23
November 28, 2018Miami Herald publishes its investigative series24
February 6, 2019Department advises Senator Sasse that OPR has opened an investigation24
February 21, 2019Partial summary judgment for the petitioners on the right to confer; briefing on remedies ordered2
August 10, 2019Epstein dies in custody24
August 27, 2019Cassell addresses the New York court at the hearing preceding dismissal of the Epstein indictment2824
September 16, 2019Remaining relief and attorney’s fees denied; judgment entered; case closed4
September 30, 2019Mandamus petition filed in the Eleventh Circuit24
April 14, 2020Panel denies mandamus25
August 7, 2020Rehearing en banc granted; panel opinion vacated2426
April 15, 2021En banc court denies the petition5

Cases: 2008 non-prosecution agreement; SDNY 2019 indictment; Palm Beach Police Department investigation; Epstein’s death in custody. People: Brad Edwards; Paul G. Cassell; Jack Scarola; Alex Acosta; Marie Villafaña; Alan Dershowitz; Ghislaine Maxwell; Julie K. Brown. Topics: The 2013 privilege logs in the CVRA litigation; Federal charging decisions; Epstein investigations overview.

Footnotes

  1. “Victim’s Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim’s Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771,” In re: Jane Doe, No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla.), Document 1, entered July 7, 2008; signature block and certificate of service read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00215606 pp.1–2, 8–9. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13

  2. Opinion and Order, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), Document 435, entered February 21, 2019, at pp.22–23 and 26–33; the sentence beginning “Particularly problematic” runs from p.27 to p.28 and the sentence beginning “The Court is not ruling” from p.32 to p.33. Quotations read from the page images. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027666 pp.22–23, 26–33. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13 ↩14 ↩15 ↩16 ↩17 ↩18

  3. “Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2’s Position on the Procedures to be Followed to Determine a Remedy for the Government’s Violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act,” No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), Document 452, entered May 10, 2019, signature block listing Bradley J. Edwards, Paul G. Cassell and John Scarola as attorneys for the petitioners. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027776 pp.1, 21. ↩ ↩2

  4. Opinion and Order, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), Document 478, entered September 16, 2019. Quotations read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02758614 pp.1–15. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13 ↩14 ↩15 ↩16 ↩17

  5. In re Wild, 994 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. April 15, 2021) (en banc), Westlaw printout; opinion of Newsom, Circuit Judge, at pp.3–4. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00074599 pp.3–4. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. Letter, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida to Kenneth W. Starr, Esq, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, “DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE”, re: Jeffrey Epstein, “Dear Mr. Starr:”, bearing no date on its face; the quotations are from its own pp. 6–7, foot-numbered “-6-” and “-7-”. Quotations and signature block read from the page image at 300 dpi. All seven sheets of this copy were read at the image, sheets 1, 6 and 7 at 300 dpi and sheets 2 to 5 at 150 dpi: no date appears on any of the seven, and none of the seven carries a facsimile transmission banner. The letter’s own p. 1 opens “I write in response to your November 28th letter”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01659888 pp.1, 6–7. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  7. A second copy of the same letter, filed as Exhibit 4 in a 135-page compilation, at its pp.22–28. All seven of those sheets were read at the image, pp.22 and 28 at 300 dpi and pp.23 to 27 at 150 dpi. Each carries an outgoing facsimile transmission banner printed across the head of the sheet on a single line: the date 12/04/07, the day TUE, the time, the sending facsimile number, the sending office name “EXECUTIVE OFFICE” and the fax’s own page counter, which runs 002 on p.22 to 008 on p.28. The times run 16:46 on pp.22–23, 16:47 on pp.24–25 and 16:48 on pp.26–28, the clock being the sending machine’s. The sending number is not reproduced here. No date is typed on the letter on any of these sheets either; the banner is the transmitting machine’s record and dates the sending only. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00234570 pp.22–28. ↩

  8. Declaration of A. Marie Villafaña in support of the United States’ response to the victim’s emergency petition for enforcement, In re: Jane Doe, No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla.), Document 14, filed with the clerk July 9, 2008 and entered on the docket July 15, 2008, ¶¶ 1–2, 6–7; filed as an exhibit in United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330. Clerk’s stamp and quoted paragraphs read from the page images. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00004697 pp.2–3, 5. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  9. “United States’ Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction,” Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON (S.D. Fla.), filed as an exhibit in United States v. Epstein, No. 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y.); this exhibit copy is stamped as docketed in July 2013, after the June 18, 2013 ruling described below, and is cited here for its arguments only. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000305 pp.2–3, 14. ↩

  10. “Order Denying Government’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction & Order Lifting Stay of Discovery,” Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), Document 189, signed June 18, 2013 and entered June 19, 2013, at pp.1–2 and the conclusion at p.14. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00591894 pp.1–2, 14. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  11. “Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2’s First Request for Admissions to the Government Regarding Questions Relevant to Their Pending Action Concerning the Crime Victims Rights Act,” Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla.), dated and served December 1, 2011; Request No. 5 quoted from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657803 pp.1, 3. ↩ ↩2

  12. “United States’ Response to Petitioners’ First Request for Admissions to the Government,” Document 213-1, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), entered on the docket July 19, 2013; response to Request No. 5 quoted from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01081186 pp.1, 3. ↩

  13. Opinion and Order, Document 435, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), February 21, 2019, p.26, summarising the court’s earlier holdings in Doe v. United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011) and 950 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2013). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027666 p.26. ↩

  14. “Order Denying Petitioners’ Motion to Join Under Rule 21 and Motion to Amend Under Rule 15,” Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), Document 324, signed April 6, 2015 and entered on the docket April 7, 2015, at pp.2, 4–8 and the conclusion at p.10. Signature and ordering paragraphs read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02755706 pp.2, 4–8, 10. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11

  15. “Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4’s Corrected Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action,” No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla.), Document 280, entered January 2, 2015, its own p.1 (p.2 of the filed exhibit); filed as an exhibit in United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330. The motion’s factual proffers are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003736 p.2. ↩ ↩2

  16. “Motion for Limited Intervention by Alan M. Dershowitz,” No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON (S.D. Fla.), Document 282, entered January 5, 2015, p.1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01200036 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  17. Supplemental Order, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), Document 325, signed and entered April 7, 2015. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02755716 ↩ ↩2

  18. Opinion and Order, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), Document 330, entered on the FLSD docket July 6, 2015. The Table, “Detail of Privilege and Relevancy Holdings,” runs from p.26 to p.51; its column headings and the explanatory footnote to the numbering are on p.26. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657752 p.26. ↩ ↩2

  19. Same Table, the rows against ranges S:14206-14216 and S:14217-14238 at p.45, S:14252-14275 at p.46 and S:14330-14337 at p.47. Read from the page images. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657752 pp.45-47. ↩ ↩2

  20. Same Table, the rows against ranges 1:005060-005081 and 1:005584-005606. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657752 p.29. ↩

  21. Same Table, the row against range S:14311-14329. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657752 p.46. ↩

  22. Same Table, the rows against ranges 1:003647-003651 and 1:003712. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657752 p.27. ↩

  23. “Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2’s Consolidated Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with Incorporated Memorandum of Law,” No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), Document 361, entered February 10, 2016. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00184224 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  24. “Executive Summary of Report: Investigation into the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida’s Resolution of Its 2006–2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation,” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, November 2020, filed as an exhibit in United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330. Page numbers given are pages of the 14-page filing; the summary’s own pagination is in roman numerals. Read from the page images. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 pp.2, 6–8, 12–13. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13 ↩14 ↩15 ↩16 ↩17 ↩18

  25. In re Wild, 955 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. April 14, 2020), Westlaw printout; reporter synopsis recording denial of the petition, counsel listing “Paul Cassell, University of Utah College of Law … Bradley James Edwards, EdwardsPottinger, LLC … for Petitioner” against “D.C. Docket No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM,” and the opinion recording at p.5 that the petition arose from the district court’s February 2019 and September 2019 rulings in this case. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00073493 pp.1–2, 5. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  26. “Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment for Breach of Non-Prosecution Agreement,” United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.), Document 142, filed February 4, 2021, at pp.15–17. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002573 pp.15–17. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  27. Report of the Office of Professional Responsibility, filed as Document 204-3 in United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (S.D.N.Y.), narrative p.204 (page 230 of 348). Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830776 p.230. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  28. Transcript, United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y.), hearing of August 27, 2019; Cassell’s remarks are at the transcript’s own pages 49–51, which run one page ahead of the PDF as served (PDF pp.48–50). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00019994 pp.48–50. Other pages of this transcript, which carry victims’ statements, are not cited. ↩ ↩2

Backlinks