EFTA00226396
Dataset 9 · 453 pages · 61.4 MB · 125,678 words
This file has been modified on the DOJ website (-717,801 bytes). View all modifications
Extracted Images (453) #
Extracted Text #
United States District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TO:
SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY
BEFORE GRAND JURY
FGJ 05-02(WPB)-Fri./No. OLY-24
SUBPOENA FOR:
PERSON I X I DOCUMENTS OR OBJECTISI
X
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testify before the Grand Jury of the United States District
Court at the place, date and time specified below.
PLACE: ROOM:
United States District Courthouse Grand Jury Room
701 Clematis Street
Wcst Palm Beach, Florida 33401
DATE AND TIME:
December 1, 2006
9:30 am
YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(s) or object(s):
Any and all records related to your employment with Jeffrey Epstein, including but not limited
to
paystubs, W-2 forms, correspondence, employment applications, and employment reviews. Any and
all
information regarding methods to contact Jeffrey Epstein directly or via any secretaries/assistants
from
1/1/2004 to the present, including but not limited to, telephone numbers, cellular telephone numbers,
Blackberry addresses, e-mail addresses, and mailing addresses. Any and all information regarding
appointments for massages performed on Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach, Florida or elsewhere.
Please coordinate your compliance i ' s d confirm the date and time , and location of
your appearance with Special Agent , Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone:
([Phone Redacted].
This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting
on behalf of the court.
CLERK
DATE:
(BY) DEPUTY CLERK November 13, 2006
This subpoena is issued upon application Name, Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S. Attorney
5
•If not applicable. ma ^none.' To be use' a int ofA0110 FORM ORD-227
JAN.86
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-000213
EFTA00226396
RETURN OF SERVICE'
RECEIVED DATE PLACE
BY SERVER
SERVED DATE PLACE
SERVED ON (NAME)
SERVED BY TITLE
STATEMENT OF SERVICE FEES
TRAVEL SERVICES TOTAL
DECLARATION OF SERVICE'
Service and
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing Information contained in the Return of
Statement of Service Fees is true and correct.
Executed on
DATE Signature of Server
Address of Server
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
1As to who may serve a subpoena and the manner of Its service see Rule 17(d). Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or
Rule 45(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2."Fees and mileage need not be tendered to the witness upon service of a subpoena Issued on behalf of the United
States or an officer or agency thereof (Rule 45(c), Federal Rules of CND Procedure; Rule 17(d), Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure) or on behalf of certain Indigent parties and criminal defendants who are unable to pay such costs (28 USC
1825, Rule 17(b) Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure)"
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-000214
EFTA00226397
United States District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TO: SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY
BEFORE GRAND JURY
FGJ 05-02(WPB)-Fri./No. OLY-24
SUBPOENA FOR:
PERSON DOCUMENTS OR OBJECT($(
X X
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testify before the Grand Jury of the United States District
Court at the place, date and time specified below.
PLACE: ROOM:
United States District Courthouse Grand Jury Room
701 Clematis Street
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 DATE AND TIME:
December I, 2006
9:30 am
YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(s) or object(s):
Any and all records related to your employment with Jeffrey Epstein, including but not limited to
paystubs, W-2 forms, correspondence, employment applications, and employment reviews. Any and all
information regarding methods to contact Jeffrey Epstein directly or via any secretaries/assistants from
1/1/2004 to the present, including but not limited to, telephone numbers, cellular telephone numbers,
Blackberry addresses, e-mail addresses, and mailing addresses. Any and all information regarding
appointments for massages performed on Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach, Florida or elsewhere.
Please coordinate your compliance • • d confirm the date and time , and location of
your appearance with Special Agent , Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone:
([Phone Redacted].
This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting
on behalf of the court.
Kos% Our
CLERK DATE:
November 13. 2006
(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
This subpoena is issued upon application
non Name, Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S. Attorney
•If not mastic:able, ma Woe- To mod inle etA0110 FORM ORD-227
JAN.86
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-000216
EFTA00226398
United States District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TO: SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY
BEFORE GRAND JURY
FGJ 05-02(WPB)-Fri./No. OLY-24-2
SUBPOENA FOR:
rd PERSON r xi DOCUMENTS OR OBJECTISI
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testifybefore the Grand Jury of the United States District
Court at the place, date and time specified below.
PLACE: ROOM:
United States District Courthouse Grand Jury Room
701 Clematis Street
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 DATE AND TRAE:
January 12, 2007
9:30 arn•
YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(s) or object(s):
Any and all records related to your employment with Jeffrey Epstein, including but not limited to
paystubs, W-2 forms, correspondence, employment applications, and employment reviews. Any and all
information regarding methods to contact Jeffrey Epstein directly or via any secretaries/assistants from
1/1/2004 to the present, including but not limited to, telephone numbers, cellular telephone numbers,
Blackberry addresses, e-mail addresses, and mailing addresses. Any and all information regarding
appointments for massages performed on Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach, Florida or elsewhere.
*Please coordinate your compliance w't s nd confirm the date and time , and location of
your appearance with Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone:
([Phone Redacted].
This subpoena shall remain in effect until you arc granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting
on behalf of the court.
CLERK DATE:
December 18, 2006
(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
This subpoena is issued upon application
of the United Slates of
•Ifnot appl tc able. enter 'none' TobtfdaliblavolA0116 FORM ORD-227
JANA6
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 1a-000219
EFTA00226399
LAW OrriCES
LYONS AND SANDERS
CHARTERED
DALE R. SANDERS • 600 NORTHEAST 1 0 AVENUE
BRUCE M. LYONS •• FORT LADMIRDALE. LORIDA 33301
HOWARD L. OREITZER TELEPHONE ([Phone Redacted]
TELEFAX 0154/ 783-4.58
EDWARD 0. BERGER
11959-1907)
'ALSO ^mimeo IN It/TORINO MAILING ADDRESS
•• AL SO ADMITTED IN COLORADO
P. O. BOX 1778
FORT LAUDERDALE. FL 33302-1778
February 14, 2007
VIA US
Re: Grand Jury Subpoena
Dear Ms. Villafana:
on
January 25, 2007, Agents" *Slater and
with a grand jury'subpoena for my
to appear on February 13,'2007. I
indicate oss would assert her rights under the
Fifth Amendment and on consent, the appearance has been
extended. You have asked me to set out the basis for my
request and that you apply thirugh appropriate channels for a
ormal grant of use immunity or Ms. Ross. I do so here.
As I indicated to you when we conversed last week, Ms. Ross is
no longer employed by Mr. Epstein, but has read much of what
can be found on the Internet about the investigation of Mr.
Epstein. From that review, she is aware that the police
considered charging several persons close to Mr. Epstein,
including at least one employee. Given that, and the seemingly
broad scope of the investigation, Ms. Ross asserts her rights
under the Fifth Amendment.
Indeed, considering that both the state authorities in Palm
Beach County and your office are conducting investigations,
there is every reason for her to be concerned and therefore to
assert her constitutional rights. If you continue to want her
to appear before a grand jury, be advised that she will assert
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-000220
EFTA00226400
her rights under the Fifth Amendment unless there is a formal
grant of immunity.
If you should have any questions regarding the above, please
feel free to contact me.
Very truly your
UCE M. LYONS
BML/md
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-00022 I
EFTA00226401
USAM 9-27.000. Principles of Federal Prosecution Page I of 5
9-27.600 Entering into Non-prosecution Agreements in Return for Cooperation — Generally
A. Except as hereafter provided, the attomcy for the government may, with supervisory approval, enter into a non-
prosecution agreement in exchange for a person's cooperation when, in his/her judgment, the person's timely
cooperation appears to be necessary to the public interest and other means of obtaining the desired cooperation
arc unavailable or would not be effective.
B. Comment.
I. In many cases, it may be important to the success of an investigation or prosecution to obtain the
testimonial or other cooperation of a person who is himself/herself implicated in the criminal conduct
being investigated or prosecuted. However, because of his/her involvement, the person may refuse to
cooperate on the basis of his/her Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. In this
situation, there are several possible approaches the prosecutor can take to render the privilege inapplicable
or to induce its waiver.
a. First, if time permits, the person may be charged, tried, and convicted before his/her cooperation is
sought in the investigation or prosecution of others. Having already been convicted himself/herself,
the person ordinarily will no longer have a valid privilege to refuse to testify and will have a strong
incentive to reveal the truth in order to induce the sentencing judge to impose a lesser sentence than
that which otherwise might be found appropriate.
b. Second, the person may be willing to cooperate if the charges or potential charg4 against him/her are
reduced in number or degree in return for his/her cooperation and his/her entry a guilty plea to the
remaining charges. An agreement to file a motion pursuant to Sentencing Guideline 5K1.1 or Rule
35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure after the defendant gives full and complete
cooperation is the preferred method for securing such cooperation. Usually such a concession by
the
government will be all that is necessary, or warranted, to secure the cooperation sought. Since it is
certainly desirable as a matter of policy that an offender be required to incur at least some liability
for his/her criminal conduct, government attorneys should attempt to secure this result in all
appropriate cases, following the principles set forth in USAM 9-27.430 to the extent practicable.
c. The third method for securing the cooperation of a potential defendant is by means of a court order
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 600126003. Those statutory provisions govern the conditions under which
uncooperative witnesses may be compelled to testify or provide information notwithstanding their
invocation of the privilege against compulsory self incrimination. In brief, under the
so-called "use
immunity" provisions of those statutes, the court may order the person to testify or provide other
information, but neither his/her testimony nor the information he/she provides may be used
against
him/her, directly or indirectly, in any criminal case except a prosecution for perjury or other
failure
to comply with the order. Ordinarily, these "use immunity" provisions should be relied on
in cases in
which attorneys for the government need to obtain sworn testimony or the production of information
before a grand jury or at trial, and in which there is reason to believe that the person will refuse to
testify or provide the information on the basis of his/her privilege against compulsory self-
incrimination. See aSAM 9-23.000. Offers of immunity and immunity agreements should be in
writing. Consideration should be given to documenting the evidence available prior to the immunity
offer.
d. Finally, there may be cases in which it is impossible or impractical to employ the
methods described
above to secure the necessary information or other assistance, and in which the person is
willing to
cooperate only in return for an agreement that he/she will not be prosecuted at all for what he/she
has
done. The provisions set forth hereafter describe the conditions that should be met before such an
agreement is made, as well as the procedures recommended for such cases.
Exhibit 15
lutp://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/27mcrm.htm
I /22/2007
EFTA00226402
USAM 9-27.000. Principles of Federal Prosecution Page 2 of 5
It is important to note that these provisions apply only if the case involves an agreement with a person who
might otherwise be prosecuted. If the person reasonably is viewed only as a potential witness rather than a
potential defendant, and the person is willing to cooperate, there is no need to consult these provisions.
USAM 9-27.600 describes three circumstances that should exist before government attorneys enter into
non-prosecution agreements in return for cooperation: the unavailability or ineffectiveness of other means
of obtaining the desired cooperation; the apparent necessity of the cooperation to the public interest; and
the approval of such a course of action by an appropriate supervisory official
2. Unavailability or Ineffectiveness of Other Means. As indicated above, non-prosecution agreements are
only one of several methods by which the prosecutor can obtain the cooperation of a person whose
criminal involvement makes him/her a potential subject of prosecution. Each of the other methods--seeking
cooperation after trial and conviction, bargaining for cooperation as part of a plea agreement, and
compelling cooperation under a "use immunity" order--involves prosecuting the person or at least leaving
open the possibility of prosecuting him/her on the basis of independently obtained evidence. Since these
outcomes are clearly preferable to permitting an offender to avoid any liability for his/her conduct, the
possible use of an alternative to a non-prosecution agreement should be given serious consideration in the
first instance.
Another reason for using an alternative to a non-prosecution agreement to obtain cooperation concerns the
practical advantage in terms of the person's credibility if he/she testifies at trial. If the person already has
been convicted, either after trial or upon a guilty plea, for participating in the events about which he/she
testifies, his/her testimony is apt to be far more credible than if it appears to the trier of fact that he/she is
getting off "scot free." Similarly, if his/her testimony is compelled by a court order, he/she cannot properly
be portrayed by the defense as a person who has made a "deal" with the government and whose testimony
is, therefore, suspect; his/her testimony will have been forced from him/her, not bargained for.
In some cases, however, there may be no effective means of obtaining the person's timely cooperation
short of entering into a non-prosecution agreement. The person may be unwilling to cooperate fully in
return for a reduction of charges, the delay involved in bringing him/her to trial might prejudice the
investigation or prosecution in connection with which his/her cooperation is sought and it may be
impossible or impractical to rely on the statutory provisions for compulsion of testimony or production of
evidence. One example of the latter situation is a case in which the cooperation needed does not
consist of
testimony under oath or the production of information before a grand jury or at trial. Other examples
are
cases in which time is critical, or where use of the procedures of 18 U.S.C. §?-6003 would unreasonab
ly
disrupt the presentation of evidence to the grand jury or the expeditious development of
an investigation,
or where compliance with the statute of limitat ions or the Speedy Trial Act precludes
timely application
for a court order.
Only when it appears that the person's timely cooperation cannot be obtained by other
means, or cannot be
obtained effectively, should the attorney for the government consider entering into a
non-prosecution
agreement.
3. Public Interest. If he/she concludes that a non-prosecution agreement
would be the only effective method
for obtaining cooperation, the attorney for the government should
consider whether, balancing the cost of
foregoing prosecution against the potential benefit of the person's
cooperation, the cooperation sought
appears necessary to the public interest. This "public interest"
determination is one of the conditions
precedent to an application under 18 U.S.C. § 6003 for a court
order compelling testimony. Like a
compulsion order, a non-prosecution agreement limits the governmen
t's ability to undertake a subsequent
prosecution of the witness. Accordingly, the same "public interest"
test should be applied in this situation
as well. Some of the considerations that may be relevant to the
application of this test are set forth in
USAM 9-27.620.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousaffoitreading_room/usarn/title9/27mcrm.htrn
1/22/2007
EFTA00226403
USAM 9-27.000. Principles of Federal Prosecution Page 3 of 5
4. Supervisory Approval. Finally, the prosecutor should secure supervisory approval before entering into a
non-prosecution agreement. Prosecutors working under the direction of a United States Attorney must seek
the approval of the United States Attorney or a supervisory Assistant United States Attorney. Departmental
attorneys not supervised by a United States Attorney should obtain the approval of the appropriate
Assistant Attorney General or his/her designee, and should notify the United States Attorney or Attorneys
concerned. The requirement of approval by a superior is designed to provide review by an attorney
experienced in such matters, and to ensure uniformity of policy and practice with respect to such
agreements. This section should be read in conjunction with USAM 9-27,640, concerning particular types
of casts in which an Assistant Attorney General or his/her designee must concur in or approve an
agreement not to prosecute in ret urn for cooperation.
9-27.620 Entering into Non-prosecution Agreements in Return for Cooperation - Considerations to be Weighed
A. In determining whether, a person's cooperation may be necessary to the public interest, the attorney for the
government, and those whose approval is necessary, should weigh all relevant considerations, including:
I. The importance of the investigation or prosecution to an effective program of law enforcement;
2. The value of the person's cooperation to the investigation or prosecution; and
3. The person's relative culpability in connection with the offense or offenses being investigated or
prosecuted and his/her history with respect to criminal activity.
B. Comment. This paragraph is intended to assist Federal prosecutors, and those whose approval they must secure,
in deciding whether a person's cooperation appears to be necessary to the public interest. The considerations
listed here arc not intended to be all-inclusive or to require a particular decision in a particular case.
Rather they
are meant to focus the decision-maker's attention on factors that probably will be controlling in the
majority of
cases.
1. Importance of Case. Since the primary function of a Federal prosecutor is to enforce the criminal law,
he/she should not routinely or indiscriminately enter into non-prosecution agreements, which are, in
essence, agreements not to enforce the law under particular conditions. Rather, he/she should reserve the
use of such agreements for cases in which the cooperation sought concerns the commission
of a serious
offense or in which successful prosecution is otherwise important in achieving effective
enforcement of the
criminal laws. The relative importance or unimportance of the contemplated case is
therefore a significant
threshold consideration.
2. Value of Cooperation. An agreement not to prosecute in return for a person's cooperation
binds the
government to the extent that the person carries out his/her part of the bargain. See Santobello
v. New York
404 U.S. 257 (1971); Wade v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 1840 (1992). Since such an
agreement forecloses
enforcement of the criminal law against a person who otherwise may be liable to prosecution
, it should not
be entered into without a clear understanding of the nature of the quid pro quo and a
careful assessment of
its probable value to the government. In order to be in a position adequately to assess
the potential value of
a person's cooperation, the prosecutor should insist on an "offer of proof' or its equivalent
from the person
or his/her attorney. The prosecutor can then weigh the offer in terms of the investi on or
prosecution in
connection with which cooperation is sought. In doing so, he/she should consider
questions as
whether the cooperation will in fact be forthcoming, whether the testimony or other
information provided
will be credible, whether it can be corroborated by other evidence, whether it will
materially assist the
investigation or prosecution, and whether substantially the same benefit can be obtained
from someone
else without an agreement not to prosecute. After assessing all of these factors, together
with any others
that may be relevant, the prosecutor can judge the strength of his/her case with and
without the person's
cooperation, and determine whether it may be in the public interest to agree to forego
prosecution under
the circumstances.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usaokousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/27mcrm.htm
1/22/2007
EFTA00226404
USAM 9-27.000. Principles of Federal Prosecution Page 4 of 5
3. Relative Culpability and Criminal History. In determining whether it may be necessary to the public
interest to agree to forego prosecution of a person who may have violated the law in return for that person's
cooperation, it is also important to consider the degree of his/her apparent culpability relative to others who
are subjects of the investigation or prosecution as well as his/her history of criminal involvement. Of
course, ordinarily it would not be in the public interest to forego prosecution of a high-ranking member of
a criminal enterprise in exchange for his/her cooperation against one of his/her subordinates, nor would the
public interest be served by bargaining away the opportunity to prosecute a person with a long history of
serious criminal involvement in order to obtain the conviction of someone else on less serious charges.
These are matters with regard to which the attorney for the government may find it helpful to consult with
the investigating agenc y or with other prosecuting authorities who may have an interest in the person or
his/her associates.
It is also important to consider whether the person has a background of cooperation with law enforcement
officials, either as a witness or an informant, and whether he/she has previously been the subject of a compulsion order
under 18 U.S.C. §?-6003 or has escaped prosecution by virtue of an agreement not to prosecute. The information
regarding compulsion orders may be available by telephone from the Immunity Unit in the Office of Enforcement
Operations of the Criminal Division.
9-27.630 Entering into Non-prosecution Agreements in Return for Cooperation — Limiting the Scope of
Commitment
A. In entering into a non-prosecution agreement, the attorney for the government should, if practicable, explicitly
limit the scope of the government's commitment to:
1. Non-prosecution based directly or indirectly on the testimony or other information provided; or
2. Non-prosecution within his/her district with respect to a pending charge, or to a specific offense then
known to have been committed by the person.
B. Comment. The attorney for the government should exercise extreme caution to ensure that his/her non-
prosecution agreement does not confer "blanket" immunity on the witness. To this end, he/she should, in the first
instance, attempt to limit his/her agreement to non-prosecution based on the testimony or information provided.
Such an "informal use immunity" agreement has two advantages over an agreement not to prosecute the person
in connection with a particular transaction: first, it preserves the prosecutor's option to prosecute on the basis of
independently obtained evidence if it later appears that the person's criminal involvement was more serious than
it originally appeared to be; and second, it encourages the witness to be as forthright as possible since the more
he/she reveals the more protection he/she will have against a future prosecution. To further encourage full
disclosure by the witness, it should be made clear in the agreement that the government's forbearance from
prosecution is conditioned upon the witness's testimony or production of information being complete and
truthful, and that failure to testify truthfully may result in a perjury prosecution.
Even if it is not practicable to obtain the desired cooperation pursuant to an "informal use immunity" agreement,
the attorney for the government should attempt to limit the scope of the agreement in terms of the testimony and
transactions covered, bearing in mind the possible effect of his/her agreement on prosecutions in other districts.
It is important that non-prosecution agreements be drawn in terms that will not bind other Federal prosecutors or
agencies without their consent. Thus, if practicable, the attorney for the government should explicitly limit the scope of
his/her agreement to non-prosecution within his/her district. If such a limitation is not practicable and it can reasonably
be anticipated that the agreement may affect prosecution of the person in other districts, the attorney for the
government contemplating such an agreement shall communicate the relevant facts to the Assistant Attorney General
with supervisory responsibility for the subject matter. United States Attorneys may not make agreements which
prejudice civil or tax liability without the express agreement of all affected Divisions and/or agencies. See also 9-
16.000 et seq. for more information regarding plea agreements.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usarn/title9/27mcrtn.htm I /22/2007
EFTA00226405
USAM 9-27.000. Principles of Federal Prosecution Page 5 of 5
Finally, the attorney for the government should make it clear that his/her agreement relates only to non-
prosecution and that he/she has no independent authority to promise that the witness will be admitted into the
Department's Witness Security program or that the Marshal's Service will provide any benefits to the witness in
exchange for his/her cooperation. This does not mean, of course, that the prosecutor should not cooperate in making
arrangements with the Marshal's Service necessary for the protection of the witness in appropriate cases. The
procedures to be followed in such cases are set forth in USAM 9-21.000.
9-27.640 Agreements Requiring Assistant Attorney General Approval
A. The attorney for the government should not enter into a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for a person's
cooperation without first obtaining the approval of the Assistant Attorney General with supervisory responsibil
ity
over the subject matter, or his/her designee, when:
1. Prior consultation or approval would be required by a statute or by Departmental policy for a declination
of
prosecution or dismissal of a charge with regard to which the agreement is to be made; or
2. The person is:
a. A high-level Federal, state, or local official;
b. An official or agent of a Federal investigative or law enforcement agency; or
c. A person who otherwise is, or is likely to become of major public interest.
B. Comment. USAM 9-27.640 sets forth special cases that require approval of non-prosecution agreements by the
responsible Assistant Attorney General or his/her designee. Subparagraph (1) covers cases in which existing
statutory provisions and departmental policies require that, with respect to certain types of offenses, the Attorney
General or an Assistant Attorney General be consulted or give his/her approval before prosecution is declined
or
charges arc dismissed. For example, see USAM 6-4.245 (tax offenses); USAM 9-41.010 (bankruptc
y frauds);
USAM 9-90..020 (internal security offenses); (see USAM 9-2.400 for a complete listing of all prior approval and
consultation requirements). An agreement not to prosecute resembles a declination of prosecution or
the
dismissal of a charge in that the end resu It in each case is similar: a person who has engaged in criminal
activity
is not prosecuted or is not prosecuted fully for his/her offense. Accordingly, attorneys for the governmen
t should
obtain the approval of the appropriate Assistant Attorney General, or his/her designee, before agreeing
not to
prosecute in any case in which consultation or approval would be required for a declination of
prosecution or
dismissal of a charge.
Subparagraph (2) sets forth other situations in which the attorney for the government should obtain
the approval
of an Assistant Attorney General, or his/her designee, of a proposed agreement not to prosecute in exchange
for
cooperation. Generally speaking, the situations described will be cases of an exceptional or extremely sensitive
nature,
or cases involving individuals or matters of major public interest. In a case covered by this provision
that appears to be
of an especially sensitive nature, the Assistant Attorney General should, in turn, consider whether it would
be
appropriate to notify the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/27mcrm.hun
I /22/2007
EFTA00226406
PART V-IMMUNITY OF WITNESSES
Section HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Chapter 6001 1970 Amendment
601. Immunity of witnesses Pub.L. 9r 2. Title § 201(a), Oct. 15, 1970. 84 Stat.
926, added V and items 6001 to 6005.
S
CHAPTER 601-IMMUNITY OF WITNESSE
ruptcy court established under chapter 6, title 28,
Court
Sec.
6001. Definitions. United States Code, the District of Columbia
the Distric t of
6002. Immunity generally. of Appeals, the Superior Court of t
Columbia, the District Court of Guam , the Distric
6003. Court and grand jury proceedings. States
Certain administrative proceedings. Court of the Virgin Island s, the United
6004. the
6005. Congressional proceedings. Court of Federal Claims, the Tax Court of ,
United States, the Court of Intern ationa l Trade
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES of Appea ls for the Armed Forces .
and the Court
1994 Amendments Oct. 15. 1970, 84
(Added Pub.L. 91-452, Title II, § 201(a),
Pub.L. 103-322, Title )0()(III, § 330013(1), Sept. 13, 1994, Stat 926, and amended Pub.L. 95-406 , § 25. Sept 30, 1978,
. 1978,
109 Stat. 2146, added chapter heading 92 Stat. 877; Pub.L. 95-598, Title III, § 314(I ), Nov. 6, 10,
Pub.L. 96-417 , Title VI, `§ 601(1), Oct.
92 Stat. 2678; 2,
§ 6001. Definitions 1980, 94 Stat. 1744; Pub.L. 97-164, Title 1, § 164(1), Apr.28,
As used in this chapter— 1982, 96 Stat. 50; Pub.L. 102-55 0. Title , § 1543, Oct.
1),
(1) "agency of the United States" means of
any 1992, 106 Stat. 4069; Pub.L. 102-572, Title DC, § 902(bX 5,
4(d), July
executive department as define d in section 101 Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat 4519; Pub.L. 103-272, §
XXXIII,
title 5, United States Code, a military department 1994, 108 Stat. 1361; Pub.L. 103-322, Title
13, 1994, 108 Stat 2146; Pub.L.
as defined in section 102 of title 5, United States § 330013(2), (3). Sept- 5, 1994, 108
103-33 7, Div. A, Title IX, § 924(d)( 1)1B), Oct.
the
Code, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Stat. 2832; Pub.L. 104-88, Title III, § 303(2), Dec.
29, 1995,
Board of Governors of the Feder al Reserv e System ,
under 53 109 Stat. 943.)
the China Trade Act regist rar appoin ted
432 (15 U.S.C. sec. 143), the Commodity HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
•1. Trading Commission, the Federal Commu-
nicatio Commission, the Federal Deposit Insur-
ns
Effective and Applicability Provisions
1995 Acts. Amendment by Pub.L. 104-88 effective Jan. 1,
1996, see section 2 of Pub.L. 104-88, set out as a note
under
ance Corporation, the Federal Maritime Commis-
sion, the Federal Power Commission, the Federal section 701 of Title 49, Transportation.
by
Trade Commission, the Surface Transportation 1992 Acts. Except as otherwise provided, amendment
of Pub.L.
Board, tt raN n:tional Labor Relations Board, the Pub.L. 102-560 effective Oct 28, 1992, see section 2
The
portation Safety Board, the Railroad 102-650, set out 1S a note under section 5301 of Title 42,
National
Public Health and Welfare.
Retirement Board, an arbitration board established 1982 Acts. Amendment by Pub.L. 97-164 effective Oct 1,
under 48 Stat. 1193 (45 U.S.C. sec. 157), the Securi- 1982, see section 402 of Pub.L. 97-164, set out as an
Effec-
epi and Exchange Commission, or a board estab- tive Date of 1982 Amendment note under section 171 of Title
sed under 49 Stat. 31 (15 U.S.C. sec. 715d); 28, Judiciary and Judicial A ()sedum.
(2) "other information" includes any book, paper, 1980 Acts. Amendment by Pub.L. 96-417 effective Nov. 1,
document, record, recording, or other material; 1980, and applicable with respect to civil actions pending on
of
. (3) "proceeding before an agency of the United or commenced on or after such date, see section 701(a)
Pub.L. 96-417, set out as an Effective Date of 1980 Amend-
States" means any proceeding before such an agen- ment note under section 251 of Title 28, Judiciary and
cy with respect to which it is authorized to issue Judicial Procedure.
subpenas and to take testimony or receive other 1978 Acts. Amendment by Pub.L. 95-698 effective Oct, 1,
' information from witnesses under oath; and 1979, see section 402(a) of Pub.L. 95-598, set out as an
(4) "court of the United States" means any of the Effective Dates note preceding section 101 of Title 11, Bank-
following courts: the Supreme Court of the United ruptcy.
States, a United States court of appeals, a United Amendment by Pub.L. 95-405 effective Oct 1, 1978, see
States district court established under chapter 5, section 28 of Pub.L. 95-405, set out as an Effective Date of
title 28, United States Code, a United States bank- 1978 Amendment note under section 2 of Title 7. Agriculture.
Complete Annotation Materials, an Title IS, U.S.CA.
1209
•
EFTA00226407
18 * 6001 IMMUNITY OF WITNESSES Part 5
1970 Acts. Section 260 of Pub.L. 91-452 provided that: Termination of Civil Aeronautics Board and Transfer of
"The provisions of part V of title 18, United States Code, Certain Functior
added by title II of this Act [this part], and the amendments All functions, wins, and duties of the Civil Aeronautics
and repeals made by title 11 of this Act [sections 835. 89i, Board were terminated or transferred by former section
1406, 1954, 2424, 2514 and 3486 of this title, sections 16, 87( 1551 of Title 49, Transportation, effective in part on ec. 31,
13.5e, 499rn(f). and 2115 of Title 7, Agriculture. section 25 f 1981, in part on Jan. I. 1983, and in part on Jan. , 198.5.
former Title 11. Bankruptcy, section 1820 of Title 12, Banks
and Banking. sections 32, 33, 49, 77v, 78u(d). 79r(e), 80a-41, Termination of Federal Power Commission
80b-9, 155, 717m, 1271. and 1714 of Title 15. Commerce and The Federal Power Commission, referred to in par. (1) was
Trade, section srof of Title 16. Conservation, section 1333 of terminated and the functions, personnel, property, funds,
Title 19, Customs Duties, section 373 of Title 21, Food and etc.. thereof were transferred to the Secretary of Energy
Drugs. sections 4874 and 7493 of Title 26, Internal Revenue (except for certain functions which were transferred to the
Code, section 161(3) of Title 29, Labor, section 506 of Title Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) by sections
33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, sections 405(0 and 7151(6), 7171(a). 7172(a). 7291, and 7293 of Title 42, The
2201 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, sections 157 Public Health and Welfare.
and 362 of Title 45, Railroads, sections 827 and 1124 of TStle Subversive Activities Control Board
46, Shipping, section 409(1) of Tide 47, Telegraphs, Tele-
The Subversive Activities Control Board was established
phones, and Radiotelegraphs, sections 9, 43, 46, 47. 48, 916,
by Act Sept. 23. 1950. c. 1024, § 12, 64 Stat. 997, and ceased
and 1017 of former Title 49, Transportation, and section 1484
to operate June 30. 1973.
of Title 49, Appendix, section 792 of Title 50. War and
National Defense, and sections 643a, 1152, 2026. and 2155(b)
of Title 50, Appendix], shall take effect on the sixtieth day
§ 6002. Immunity generally
following the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. IS, Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his
1970). No amendment to or repeal of any provision of law privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or pro-
under tide II of this Act shall affect any immunity to which vide other information in a proceeding before or ancil-
any individual is entitled under such provision by reason of lary to—
any testimony or other information given before such day." (1) a court or grand jury of the United States,
Change of Name (2) an agency of the United States, or
References to United States Claims Court deemed to refer (3) either House of Congress, a joint committee
to United States Court of Federal Claims and references to of the two Houses, or a committee or a subcommit-
Claims Court deemed to refer to Court of Federal Claims, tee of either House,
see section 902(b) of Pub.L. 102-572, set out as a note under
section 171 of Tide 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. and the person presiding over the proceeding commu-
nicates to the witness an order issued under this title,
Savings Provisions the witness may not refuse to comply with the order
Amendment by section 314 of Pub.L. 95-598 not to affect on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination;
the application of chapter 9 [§ 151 et seq.], chapter 96 but no testimony or other information compelled un-
[§ 1961 et seq.], or section 2516, 3057, or 3284 of this title to der the order (or any information directly or indirectly
any act of any person ( committed before Oct. 1, 1979, or derived from such testimony or other information)
(2) committed after Oct. 1. 1979, in connection with a Case may be used against the witness in any criminal case,
commenced before such date, see section 403(d) of Pub.L.
except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false state-
95-598, set out preceding section 101 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.
ment, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.
Amendment or Repeal of Inconsistent Provisions (Added Pub.L. 91-452, Title if, § 201(a), Oct. 16, 1970, 84
Section 2.59 of Pub.L. 91-452 provided that "In addition to Stat. 927, and amended Pub.L. 103-322, Title XXXIii,
§ 330013(4), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat 2146.)
the provisions of law specifically amended or specifically
repealed by this title [see Effective Date note set out under
this section], any other provision of law inconsistent with the § 6003. Court and grand jury proceedings
provisions of part V of title 18, United States Code (added by (a) in the case of any individual who has been or
tide II of this Act) [this part], is to that extent amended or may be called to testify or provide other information
repealed." at any proceeding before or ancillary to a court of the
United States or a grand jury of the United States,
Abolition of the Atomic Energy Commission
the United States district court for the judicial district
The Atomic Energy Commission was abolished and all in which the proceeding is or may be held shall issue,
functions were transferred to the Administrator of the Ener- in accordance with subsection (b) of this section, upon
gy Research and Development Administration (unless other-
the request of the United States attorney for such
wise specifically provided) by section 5814 of Title 42, The
Public Health and Welfare. The Energy Research and district, an order requiring such individual to give
Development Administration was tenninated and functions testimony or provide other information which he re-
vested by law in the Administrator thereof were transferred fuses to give or provide on the basis of his privilege
to the Secretary of Energy (unless otherwise specifically against self-incrimination, such order to become effec-
provided) by sections 7151(a) and 7293 of Title 42. tive as provided in section 6002 of this title.
Complete Annotation Matedals, see Thls 1% u.s.c.a.
1210
EFTA00226408
Ch. 601 IMMUNITY OF WITNESSES 18 § 6005
(h) A I hilted States attorney may, with the approv- § 6005. Congressional proceedings
al of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney (a) In the case of any individual who has been or
General, the Associate Attorney General, or any des- may be called to testify or provide other information
ignated Assistant Attorney General or Deputy Assis- at any proceeding before or ancillary to either House
tant Attorney General, request an order under subsec- of Congress, or any committee, or any subcommittee
of either House, or any joint committee of the two
tion (a) of this section when in his judgment— Houses, a United States district court shall issue, in
(1) the testimony or other information from such accordance with subsection (b) of this section, upon
individual may be necessary to the public interest; the request of a duly authorized representative of the
and House of Congress or the committee concerned, an
order requiring such individual to give testimony or
(2) such individual has refused or is likely to provide other information which he refuses to give or
refuse to testify or provide other information on the provide on the basis of his privilege against self-
basis of his privilege against self-incrimination. incrimination, such order to become effective as pro-
(Added Pub.L. 91-452, Title ll, ¢ 201(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 vided in section 6002 of this title.
Stat 927, and amended Pub.L. 100-690. Title VII. 5 7020(e), (b) Before issuing an order under subsection (a) of
Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub.L. 103-322, Title XXXIII, this section, a United States district court shall find
§ 330013(4), Sept. 13, 1994. 108 Stat. 2146.) that—
(1) in the case of a proceeding before or ancillary
§ 6004. Certain administrative proceedings to either House of Congress, the request for such
(a) In the case of any individual who has been or an order has been approved by an affirmative vote
who may be called to testify or provide other informa- of a majority of the Members present of that
tion at any proceeding before an agency of the United House;
States, the agency may, with the approval of the (2) in the case of a proceeding before or ancillary
Attorney General, issue, in accordance with subsection to a committee or a subcommittee of either House
(b) of this section, an order requiring the individual to of Congress or a joint committee of both Houses,
give testimony or provide other information which he the request for such an order has been approved by
refuses to give or provide on the basis of his privilege an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of
against self-incrimination, such order to become effec- the full committee; and
tive as provided in section 6002 of this title. (3) ten days or more prior to the day on which
the request for such an order was made, the Attor-
(b) An agency of the United States may issue an ney General was served with notice of an intention
order under subsection (a) of this section only if in its to request the order.
judgment—
(c) Upon application of the Attorney General, the
(1) the testimony or other information from such United States district court shall defer the issuance of
individual may be necessary to the public interest; any order under subsection (a) of this section for such
and period, not longer than twenty days from the date of
the request for such order, as the Attorney General
(2) such individual has refused or Ls likely to may specify.
refuse to testify or provide other information on the (Added Pub.L. 61-452, Title II, 1201(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84
basis of his privilege against self-incrimination. Stat. 928, and amended Pub.L. 103-322, Title XXXIII,
(Added Pub.L. 91-452, Title IL § 201(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 § 330013(4), Sept 13, 1994, 108 Stat 2146; Pub.L. 104-292,
Stat 927, and amended Pub.L. 103-3tZ, Title § 5, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat 3460; Pub.L. 104-294, Title VI,
330013(4), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.) 605(0), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3510.)
Complete Annotation Materials, see Title 18, U.S.C.A.
1211
EFTA00226409
United States District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TO:
SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY
BEFORE GRAND JURY
FGJ 05-02(WPB)-Fri./No. OLY-24
SUBPOENA FOR:
PERSON DOCUMENTS OR OBJECT'S]
X
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testify before the G rand J ury of th e Un ited States Di strict
Court at the place, date and time specified below.
PLACE: ROOM:
United States District Courthouse Grand Jury Room
701 Clematis Street
Wcst Palm Beach, Florida 33401
DATE AND TIME:
December 1, 2006
9:30 am
YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(s) or object(s):
Any and all records related to your employment with Jeffrey Epstein, including but not
limited to
paystubs, W-2 forms, correspondence, employment applications, and employment reviews. Any and
all
information regarding methods to contact Jeffrey Epstein directly or via any secretaries/assistants
from
1/112004 to the present, including but not limited to, telephone numbers, cellular telephone numbers,
Blackberry addresses, e-mail addresses, and mailing addresses. Any and all information
regarding
appointments for massages performed on Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach, Florida or elsewhere.
Please coordinate your compliance '
your appearance with Special Agen
([Phone Redacted].
t ilt • d confirm the date and time , and location of
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone:
This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or
by an officer acting
on behalf of the court.
This subpoena is issued upon application Namc Address and P Attorney
5
•[ not applicable, enter 'none' To be mai stag a A
OR -227
JAN.86
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-000213
EFTA00226410
RETURN OF SERVICE'
RECEIVED DATE PLACE
BY SERVER
SERVED DATE PLACE
SERVED ON (NAME)
SERVED BY TITLE
STATEMENT OF SERVICE FEES
TRAVEL SERVICES TOTAL
DECLARATION OF SERVICE'
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America Mal the foregoing information contained in the Return of Service and
Statement of Service Fees is true and correct.
Executed on
DATE Signature of Server
Address of Server
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
lAs to who may serve a subpoena and the manner of Its service see Rule 17(d). Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or
Rule 45(c), Federal Rules of CNII Procedure.
2."Fees and mileage need not be tendered to the witness upon service of a subpoena Issued on behalf of the United
States or an officer or agency thereof (Rule 45(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 17(d), Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure) or on behalf of certain Indigent parties and criminal defendants who are unable to pay such costs (28 USC
1825, Rule 17(b) Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure)"
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-000214
EFTA00226411
United States District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TO:
SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY
BEFORE GRAND JURY
Fall 05-02(WPB)-Fri./No. OLY-24
SUBPOENA FOR:
PERSON r xi DOCUMENTS OR OBJECT [S
IXi
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testify before the Grand Jury of the United States District
Court at the place, date and time specified below.
PLACE: ROOM:
United States District Courthouse Grand Jury Room
701 Clematis Street
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 DATE AND TIME:
December 1, 2006
9:30 am
YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(s) or object(s):
Any and all records related to your employment with Jeffrey Epstein, including but not limited to
paystubs, W-2 forms, correspondence, employment applications, and employment reviews. Any and all
information regarding methods to contact Jeffrey Epstein directly or via any secretaries/assistants from
1/1/2004 to the present, including but not limited to, telephone numbers, cellular telephone numbers,
Blackberry addresses, e-mail addresses, and mailing addresses. Any and all information regarding
appointments for massages performed on Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach, Florida or elsewhere.
Please coordinate your compliance liiiii d confirm the date and time , and location of
your appearance with Special Agent IIIIII, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone:
([Phone Redacted].
This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting
on behalf of the court.
•
Ool t etspitij.
CLERK 0
•-• i DATE:
i 4
S.: November 13, 2006
(BY) DEPUTY CLERJC
This subpoena is issued upon application Name, Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S. Attorney
of the U ' dStat f Ame '
'If not applicable. alto 'nom' To bnemele boa of A0110 FORM ORD-227
JAN.86
Casc No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-000216
EFTA00226412
United States District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TO: SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY
BEFORE GRAND JURY
FGJ 05-02(WPB)-Fri./No. OLY-24-2
SUBPOENA FOR:
PERSON DOCUMENTS OR OBJECT'S]
X X
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testify before the Grand Jury of the United States District
Court at the place, date and time specified below.
•
PLACE: ROOM:
United States District Courthouse Grand Jury Room
701 Clematis Street
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 DATE AND TIME:
January 12, 2007
9:30 am•
YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(s) or object(s):
Any and all records related to your employment with Jeffrey Epstein, including but not limited to
paystubs, W-2 forms, correspondence, employment applications, and employment reviews. Any and all
information regarding methods to contact Jeffrey Epstein directly or via any secretaries/assistants from
1/1/2004 to the present, including but not limited to, telephone numbers, cellular telephone numbers,
Blackberry addresses, e-mail addresses, and mailing addresses. Any and all information regarding
appointments for massages performed on Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach, Florida or elsewhere.
*Please coordinate your compliance .* • nd confirm the date and time, and location of
your appearance with Special Agent , Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone:
([Phone Redacted].
This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting
on behalf of the court.
CLERK DATE:
December 18, 2006
(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
This subpoena is issued upon application Name, Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S. Attorney
of the United States of America
•Knot applicable. enter "none.` To beryl .r.. o(A0110 FORM ORD-227
JAN.86
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-000219
EFTA00226413
LAW OFFICES
LYONS AND SANDERS
CHARTERED
DALE R. SANDERS • 600 NORTHEAST .3"17 AVENUE
BRUCE M. LYONS •• FORT LAUDIIILDAI.S. FLORIDA 3300.1
HOWARD L. ORCITZER TELEPHONE [Phone Redacted]
TELEFAX ([Phone Redacted]
COWARD 0. MERGER
4195P-I9417)
'ea° women° IN WYOMING MAILING ADDRESS
• ALSO ADMITTED IN COLORADO
P. O. SOX 1778
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33302-1776
February 14, 2007
Re: Adrian Ross Grand Jury Subpoena
Dear Ms. Villafana:
January 25, 2007, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlland
with a grand jury subpoena for my
to appear on February 13, 2007. I
indicate ss would assert her rights under the
Fifth Amendment and on consent, the appearance has been
extended. You have asked me to set out the basis for my
request and that you apply through appropriate channels for a
formal grant of use immunity for . I do so here.
As I indicated to you when we conversed last week, is
no longer employed by Mr. Epstein, but has read much o w at
can be found on the Internet about the investigation of Mr.
Epstein. From that review, she is aware that the police
considered charging several persons close to Mr. Epstein,
including at least one employee. Given that, and the seemingly
broad scope of the investigation, Ms. Ross asserts her rights
under the Fifth Amendment.
Indeed, considering that both the state authorities in Palm
Beach County and your office are conducting investigations,
there is every reason for her to be concerned and therefore to
assert her constitutional rights. If you continue to want her
to appear before a grand jury, be advised that she will assert
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-000220
EFTA00226414
her rights under the Fifth Amendment unless there is a formal
grant of immunity.
If you should have any questions regarding the above, please
feel free to contact me.
Very truly your
UCE M. LYONS
BML/md
d
2
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-000221
EFTA00226415
USAM 9-27.000. Principles of Federal Prosecution Pagc 1 of 5
9-27.600 Entering into Non-prosecution Agreements in Return for Cooperation — Generally
A. Except as hereafter provided, the attorney for the government may, with supervisory approval, enter into a non-
prosecution agreement in exchange for a person's cooperation when, in his/her judgment, the person's timely
cooperation appears to be necessary to the public interest and other means of obtaining the desired cooperation
arc unavailable or would not be effective.
B. Comment.
1. In many cases, it may be important to the success of an investigation or prosecution to obtain the
testimonial or other cooperation of a person who is himself/herself implicated in the criminal conduct
being investigated or prosecuted. However, because of his/her involvement, the person may refuse to
cooperate on the basis of his/her Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. In this
situation, there are several possible approaches the prosecutor can take to render the privilege inapplicable
or to induce its waiver.
a. First, if time permits, the person may be charged, tried, and convicted before his/her cooperation is
sought in the investigation or prosecution of others. Having already been convicted himself/herself,
the person ordinarily will no longer have a valid privilege to refuse to testify and will have a strong
incentive to reveal the truth in order to induce the sentencing judge to impose a lesser sentence than
that which otherwise might be found appropriate.
b. Second, the person may be willing to cooperate if the charges or potential charge against him/her are
reduced in number or degree in return for his/her cooperation and his/her entry of a guilty plea to the
remaining charges. An agreement to file a motion pursuant to Sentencing Guideline 5K1.1 or Rule
35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure after the defendant gives full and complete
cooperation is the preferred method for securing such cooperation. Usually such a concession by the
government will be all that is necessary, or warranted, to secure the cooperation sought. Since it is
certainly desirable as a matter of policy that an offender be required to incur at least some liability
for his/her criminal conduct, government attorneys should attempt to secure this result in all
appropriate cases, following the principles set forth in USAM 9-27.430 to the extent practicable.
c. The third method for securing the cooperation of a potential defendant is by means of a court order
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6001:6003. Those statutory provisions govern the conditions under which
uncooperative witnesses may be compelled to testify or provide information notwithstanding their
invocation of the privilege against compulsory self incrimination. In brief, under the so-called "use
immunity" provisions of those statutes, the court may order the person to testi& or provide
other
information, but neither his/her testimony nor the information he/she provides may be used against
him/her, directly or indirectly, in any criminal case except a prosecution for perjury or
other failure
to comply with the order. Ordinarily, these "use immunity" provisions should be relied
on in cases in
which attorneys for the government need to obtain sworn testimony or the production of
information
before a grand jury or at trial, and in which there is reason to believe that the person
will refuse to
testify or provide the information on the basis of his/her privilege against compulsory
self-
incrimination. See usimo 9-23,a Offers of immunity and immunity agreements should be in
writing. Consideration should be given to documenting the evidence available prior to
the immunity
offer.
d. Finally, there may be cases in which it is impossible or impractical to employ
the methods described
above to secure the necessary information or other assistance, and in which the
person is willing to
cooperate only in return for an agreement that he/she will not be prosecuted
at all for what he/she has
done. The provisions set forth hereafter describe the conditions that should
be met before such an
agreement is made, as well as the procedures recommended for such cases.
Exhibit 15
littp://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousaffoia_reading_room/usam/title9/27mcmhtm
1/22/2007
EFTA00226416
USAM 9-27.000. Principles of Federal Prosecution Page 2 of 5
It is important to note that these provisions apply only if the case involves an agreement with a person who
might otherwise be prosecuted. If the person reasonably is viewed only as a potential witness rather than a
potential defendant, and the person is willing to cooperate, there is no need to consult these provisions.
IJSAM 9-27.6A describes three circumstances that should exist before government attorneys enter into
non-prosecution agreements in return for cooperation: the unavailability or ineffectiveness of other means
of obtaining the desired cooperation; the apparent necessity of the cooperation to the public interest; and
the approval of such a course of action by an appropriate supervisory official
2. Unavailability or Ineffectiveness of Other Means. As indicated above, non-prosecution agreements are
only one of several methods by which the prosecutor can obtain the cooperation of a person whose
criminal involvement makes him/her a potential subject of prosecution. Each of the other methods--seeking
cooperation after trial and conviction, bargaining for cooperation as part of a plea agreement, and
compelling cooperation under a "use immunity" order--involves prosecuting the person or at least leaving
open the possibility of prosecuting him/her on the basis of independently obtained evidence. Since these
outcomes are clearly preferable to permitting an offender to avoid any liability for his/her conduct, the
possible use of an alternative to a non-prosecution agreement should be given serious consideration in the
first instance.
Another reason for using an alternative to a non-prosecution agreement to obtain cooperation concerns the
practical advantage in terms of the person's credibility if he/she testifies at trial. If the person already has
been convicted, tither after trial or upon a guilty plea, for participating in the events about which he/she
testifies, his/her testimony is apt to be far more credible than if it appears to the trier of fact that he/she is
getting off "scot free." Similarly, if his/her testimony is compelled by a court order, he/she cannot properly
be portrayed by the defense as a person who has made a "deal" with the government and whose testimony
is, therefore, suspect; his/her testimony will have been forced from hint/her, not bargained for.
In some cases, however, there may be no effective means of obtaining the person's timely cooperation
short of entering into a non-prosecution agreement. The person may be unwilling to cooperate fully in
return for a reduction of charges, the delay involved in bringing him/her to trial might prejudice the
investigation or prosecution in connection with which his/her cooperation is sought and it may be
impossible or impractical to rely on the statutory provisions for compulsion of testimony or production of
evidence. One example of the latter situation is a case in which the cooperation needed does not consist of
testimony under oath or the production of information before a grand jury or at trial. Other examples are
cases in which time is critical, or where use of the procedures of 18 U.S.C. §?-6003 would unreasonably
disrupt the presentation of evidence to the grand jury or the expeditious development of an investigation,
or where compliance with the statute of limitat ions or the Speedy Trial Act precludes timely application
for a court order.
Only when it appears that the person's timely cooperation cannot be obtained by other means, or cannot be
obtained effectively, should the attorney for the government consider entering into a non-prosecution
agreement.
3. Public Interest. If he/she concludes that a non-prosecution agreement would be the only effective method
for obtaining cooperation, the attorney for the government should consider whether, balancing the cost of
foregoing prosecution against the potential benefit of the person's cooperation, the cooperation sought
appears necessary to the public interest. This "public interest" determination is one of the conditions
precedent to an application under I8 U.S.C. § 6003 for a court order compelling testimony. Like a
compulsion order, a non-prosecution agreement limits the government's ability to undertake a subsequent
prosecution of the witness. Accordingly, the same "public interest" test should be applied in this situation
as well. Some of the considerations that may be relevant to the application of this test are set forth in
USAM 9-27.620.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_roorn/usam/title9/27mcrm.htm I /22/2007
EFTA00226417
USAM 9-27.000. Principles of Federal Prosecution Page 3 of 5
4. Supervisory Approval. Finally, the prosecutor should secure supervisory approval before entering into a
non-prosecution agreement. Prosecutors working under the direction of a United States Attorney must seek
the approval of the United States Attorney or a supervisory Assistant United States Attorney. Departmental
attorneys not supervised by a United States Attorney should obtain the approval of the appropriate
Assistant Attorney General or his/her designee, and should notify the United States Attorney or Attorneys
concerned. The requirement of approval by a superior is designed to provide review by an attorney
experienced in such matters, and to ensure uniformity of policy and practice with respect to such
agreements. This section should be read in conjunction with USAM 9-27.640, concerning particular types
of cases in which an Assistant Attorney General or his/her designee must concur in or approve an
agreement not to prosecute in ret urn for cooperation.
9-27.620 Entering into Non-prosecution Agreements in Return for Cooperation — Considerations to be Weighed
A. In determining whether, a person's cooperation may be necessary to the public interest, the attorney for the
government, and those whose approval is necessary, should weigh all relevant considerations, including:
1. The importance of the investigation or prosecution to an effective program of law enforcement;
2. The value of the person's cooperation to the investigation or prosecution; and
3. The person's relative culpability in connection with the offense or offenses being investigated or
prosecuted and his/her history with respect to criminal activity.
B. Comment. This paragraph is intended to assist Federal prosecutors, and those whose approval they must secure,
in deciding whether a person's cooperation appears to be necessary to the public interest. The considerations
listed here are not intended to be all-inclusive or to require a particular decision in a particular case. Rather
they
are meant to focus the decision-makers attention on factors that probably will be controlling in the majority
of
cases.
1. Importance of Case. Since the primary function of a Federal prosecutor is to enforce the criminal law,
he/she should not routinely or indiscriminately enter into non-prosecution agreements, which are, in
essence, agreements not to enforce the law under particular conditions. Rather, he/she should reserve the
use of such agreements for cases in which the cooperation sought concerns the commission of a serious
offense or in which successful prosecution is otherwise important in achieving effective
enforcement of the
criminal laws. The relative importance or unimportance of the contemplated case is
therefore a significant
threshold consideration.
2. Value of Cooperation. An agreement not to prosecute in return for a person's cooperation
binds the
government to the extent that the person carries out his/her part of the bargain. See Santobello
v. New York
404 U.S. 257 (1971); Wade v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 1840 (1992). Since such an
agreement forecloses
enforcement of the criminal law against a person who otherwise may be liable to
prosecution, it should not
be entered into without a clear understanding of the nature of the quid pm quo
and a careful assessment of
its probable value to the government. In order to be in a position adequately
to assess the potential value of
a person's cooperation, the prosecutor should insist on an "offer of proof' or
its equivalent from the person
or his/her attorney. The prosecutor can then weigh the offer in terms of the
investigation or prosecution in
connection with which cooperation is sought. In doing so, he/she should consider
such questions as
whether the cooperation will in fact be forthcoming, whether the testimony
or other information provided
will be credible, whether it can be corroborated by other evidence, whether it
will materially assist the
investigation or prosecution, and whether substantially the same benefit can
be obtained from someone
else without an agreement not to prosecute. After assessing all of these
factors, together with any others
that may be relevant, the prosecutor can judge the strength of his/her
case with and without the person's
cooperation, and determine whether it may be in the public interest to
agree to forego prosecution under
the circumstances.
http://www.usdoj.govhisao/cousaabia_reading_roonilusain/title9/27mcrm.htm
1/22/2007
EFTA00226418
USAM 9-27.000. Principles of Federal Prosecution Page 4 of 5
3. Relative Culpability and Criminal History. In determining whether it may be necessary to the public
interest to agree to forego prosecution of a person who may have violated the law in return for that person's
cooperation, it is also important to consider the degree of his/her apparent culpability relative to others who
are subjects of the investigation or prosecution as well as his/her history of criminal involvement. Of
course, ordinarily it would not be in the public interest to forego prosecution of a high-ranking member of
a criminal enterprise in exchange for his/her cooperation against one of his/her subordinates, nor would the
public interest be served by bargaining away the opportunity to prosecute a person with a long history of
serious criminal involvement in order to obtain the conviction of someone else on less serious charges.
These are matters with regard to which the attorney for the government may find it helpful to consult with
the investigating agenc y or with other prosecuting authorities who may have an interest in the person or
his/her associates.
It is also important to consider whether the person has a background of cooperation with law enforcement
officials, either as a witness or an informant, and whether he/she has previously been the subject of a compulsion order
under 18 U.S.C. §?-6003 or has escaped prosecution by virtue of an agreement not to prosecute. The information
regarding compulsion orders may be available by telephone from the Immunity Unit in the Office of Enforcement
Operations of the Criminal Division.
9-27.630 Entering into Non-prosecution Agreements in Return for Cooperation — Limiting the Scope of
Commitment
A. In entering into a non-prosecution agreement, the attorney for the government should, if practicable, explicitly
limit the scope of the government's commitment to:
1. Non-prosecution based directly or indirectly on the testimony or other information provided; or
2. Non-prosecution within his/her district with respect to a pending charge, or to a specific offense then
known to have been committed by the person.
B. Comment. The attorney for the government should exercise extreme caution to ensure that his/her non-
prosecution agreement does not confer "blanket" immunity on the witness. To this end, he/she should, in the first
instance, attempt to limit his/her agreement to non-prosecution based on the testimony or information provided.
Such an "informal use immunity" agreement has two advantages over an agreement not to prosecute the person
in connection with a particular transaction: first, it preserves the prosecutor's option to prosecute on the basis of
independently obtained evidence if it later appears that the person's criminal involvement was more serious than
it originally appeared to be; and second, it encourages the witness to be as forthright as possible since the more
he/she reveals the more protection he/she will have against a future prosecution. To further encourage full
disclosure by the witness, it should be made clear in the agreement that the government's forbearance from
prosecution is conditioned upon the witness's testimony or production of information being complete and
truthful, and that failure to testify truthfully may result in a perjury prosecution.
Even if it is not practicable to obtain the desired cooperation pursuant to an "informal use immunity" agreement,
the attorney for the government should attempt to limit the scope of the agreement in terms of the testimony and
transactions covered, bearing in mind the possible effect of his/her agreement on prosecutions in other districts.
It is important that non-prosecution agreements be drawn in terms that will not bind other Federal prosecutors or
agencies without their consent. Thus, if practicable, the attorney for the government should explicitly limit the scope of
his/her agreement to non-prosecution within his/her district. If such a limitation is not practicable and it can reasonably
be anticipated that the agreement may affect prosecution of the person in other districts, the attorney for the
government contemplating such an agreement shall communicate the relevant facts to the Assistant Attorney General
with supervisory responsibility for the subject matter. United States Attorneys may not make agreements which
prejudice civil or tax liability without the express agreement of all affected Divisions and/or agencies. See also 9-
16.000 et seq. for more information regarding plea agreements.
lutp://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/27mcrm.htm 1/22/2007
EFTA00226419
USAM 9-27.000. Principles of Federal Prosecution Page 5 of 5
Finally, the attorney for the government should make it clear that his/her agreement relates only to non-
prosecution and that he/she has no independent authority to promise that the witness will he admitted into the
Department's Witness Security program or that the Marshal's Service will provide any benefits to the witness in
exchange for his/her cooperation. This does not mean, of course, that the prosecutor should not cooperate in making
arrangements with the Marshal's Service necessary for the protection of the witness in appropriate cases. The
procedures to be followed in such cases are set forth in USAM9-21.000.
9-27.640 Agreements Requiring Assistant Attorney General Approval
A. The attorney for the government should not enter into a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for a person's
cooperation without first obtaining the approval of the Assistant Attorney General with supervisory responsibility
over the subject matter, or his/her designee, when:
1. Prior consultation or approval would be required by a statute or by Departmental policy for a declination of
prosecution or dismissal of a charge with regard to which the agreement is to be made; or
2. The person is:
a. A high-level Federal, state, or local official;
b. An official or agent of a Federal investigative or law enforcement agency; or
c. A person who otherwise is, or is likely to become of major public interest.
B. Comment. USAM 9-27.640 sets forth special cases that require approval of non-prosecution agreements by the
responsible Assistant Attorney General or his/her designee. Subparagrc ph (1) covers cases in which existing
statutory provisions and departmental policies require that, with respe to certain types of offenses, the Attorney
General or an Assistant Attorney General be consulted or give his/her approval before prosecution is declined
or
charges arc dismissed. For example, see USAM 64245 (tax offenses); USAM 941.010 (bankruptc
y frauds);
USAM 9-90,020 (internal security offenses); (see USAM_9-2.400 for a complete listing of all prior
approval and
consultation requirements). An agreement not to prosecute resembles a declination of prosecution or
the
dismissal of a charge in that the end resu It in each case is similar: a person who has engaged
in criminal activity
is not prosecuted or is not prosecuted fully for his/her offense. Accordingly, attorneys
for the government should
obtain the approval of the appropriate Assistant Attorney General, or his/her designee, before
agreeing not to
prosecute in any case in which consultation or approval would be required for a declination
of prosecution or
dismissal of a charge.
Subparagraph (2) sets forth other situations in which the attorney for the government
should obtain the approval
of an Assistant Attorney General, or his/her designee, of a proposed agreement
not to prosecute in exchange for
cooperation. Generally speaking, the situations described will be cases of an
exceptional or extremely sensitive nature,
or cases involving individuals or matters of major public interest. In a
case covered by this provision that appears to be
of an especially sensitive nature, the Assistant Attorney General should,
in turn, consider whether it would be
appropriate to notify the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General.
http://vvww.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/27mcrm.htm
I /22/2007
EFTA00226420
ESSES
PART V-IMMUNITY OF WITN
NOTES
Section HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY
Chapter 6001 1910 Amendment
601. Immunity of witnesses Oct. 15. 1970, 84 Stat.
Publ.. 91-152, Title II, 6 201(a),6005
V and item s 6001 to .
926, added Part
WITNESSES
CHAPTER 601-IMMUNITY OF
ter 6, title 28,
ruptcy court established under chap mbia Court
Sec. Cod e, the Dist rict of Colu
Definitions.
United States District of
6001.
Immunity generally. of Appeals, the Superior Court of the District
6002 Cou rt of Gua m, the
Court and grand jury proceeding
s. Columbia, the District ed States
6003.
inistr ative proce eding s. Court of the Virg in Islan ds, the Unit
6004. Certa in adm Cou rt of the
0005. Congressional proce eding s. Court of Federal Claims, the Tax ional Trade,
United States, the Cou rt of Inte rnat
IIISTORICAL AND STATUTORY
NOTES the Armed Forces.
and the Court of Appeals for
201(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84
1994 Amendments (Added Publ. 91-452, Title II, §
I 330013(1), Sept. 13, 1994, L. 95-40 5, 6 25, Sept. 30, 1978,
Pub.L. 103-322, Title XXXIII, Stat. 926, and amended Pub.
§ 314(l ), Nov. 6, 1978,
108 Stat. 2146, added chapter head
ing. 92 Stat. 877; Pub.L. 95-598, Title III,
92 Stat. 2678; Pub. L. 96-4 17, Title VI, € 601(1), Oct. 10,
I, I 164(1), Apr. 2,
§ 6001. Definitions 1980, 94 Stat. 1744; Pub.L. 97-1
64,
50,
7Stle
Title XV, § 1543, Oct. 28,
As used in this chap ter— 1982, 96 Stat. 50; Pub. L. 102-5
L. 102— 572, Title IX, § 902(bRI),
es" means any , 106 Stat. 4069; Pub.
(1) "agency of the United Stat section 101 of 1992 29, 1992 , 106 Stat. 4519 ; Pub. L. 103-272, § 4(d), July 5,
executive department as defined in
Oct.
322 Title XXXIII,
Unit ed State s Cod e, a milit ary depa rtment 1994, 108 Stat. 1361; Pub.L. , 103- Stat. 2146; Pub.L.
title 5, ed States § 330013(2). (3), Sept IX, 13, 1994 108
as defined in section 102 of title 5, Unit the 103-337, Div. A, Title I 924(d )(1)(B ), Oct. 5, 1994, 108
Nuc lear Reg ulato ry Com miss ion, Title III, § 303(2 ), Dec. 29, 1995,
Code, the Syst em, Stat. 2832; Publ.. 10448,
Board of Governors of the Federal Rese rve
109 Stat 913.)
under 53
the China Trade Act registrar appointed ES
Commod ity HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOT
• Stat. 1432 (15 U.S.C. sec. 143), the Com mu- Prov ision s
eral ility
• Futures Trading Commission, the Fed osit Insur- Effective and Appnd
licab
1995 Acta Ame i t y Pub.L. 104-88 effective Jan. 1.
nications Commission, the Federal Dep . 104-88, set out as a note under
Commis- section 2 of
ance Corporation, the Federal Maritime Federal 1996, see 701 of Title 49, portation.
sion, the Federal Power Commission, the tation section Acts. Except as otherwise provided, amendment by
ace Tran spor 1992
• -- Trade Commission, the Surf , see section 2 of Pub.L.
Board, the Pub.L. 107450 effective Oct. 28, 1992on 6301 of Title 42, The
.1-Board, the National Labor Relations unde r secti
the Railroad 102450, set out as a note
' National Transportation Safety Board, Welfare.
blished Public Health and
Retirement i ard, an arbitration board esta 1982 Acts . Ame ndm ent by Pub.L. 97-164 effective Oct
1,
r 48 Sta 1193 (45 U.S. C. sec. 1571 the Securi- of Pub. L. 97-16 4, set out as an Effec-
unde on 402
d estab- 1982, see secti on 171 of Title
ties and Exc ange Commission, or a boar 715d); the Date of 1982 Amendment note under secti
lished under 49 Ste t 31 (15 U.S. C. sec. 28, Judiciary and Judic ial Proc edur e.
book, paper, 17 effective Nov. 1,
. (2) "other information" includes any 1980 Acts. Amendment by Pub.L. 96-4
rial; with respe ct to civil actions pending on
document, record, recording, or other mate 1980, and appli cable
such date, see section 701(a) of
re an agen cy of the Unit ed or commenced on or after of 1980 Amend-
(3) "proceeding befo as an Effective Date
mea ns any proc eedi ng befo re such an agen- Pub.L. 96-417, set out 251 of Title 28, Judiciary and
States" ment note under secti on
cy with respect to which it is auth orize d to issue
ial Procedure.
ive other Judic Acts. Amendment by Pub.L. 95-598 effective Oct. 1,
subpenas and to take testimony or rece 1978
and L. 95-498, set out as an
• information from witnesses under oath; 1979, see section 402(a) of Pub.
on 101 of Title 11, Bank-
ns any of the Dates note preceding secti
(4) "court of the United States" mea the United Effective
- following courts: the Supreme Court of a United ruptc ndment by Pub.L. 95-405 effective Oct. 1, 1978, see
y.
State s, a Unit ed Stat es cour t of appe als, Ame
Effective Date of
chapter 5, section 28 of Pub.L. 95-405, set out as an
States district court established under es bank- 1978 Amendment note under section 2 of Title 7, Agriculture.
title 28, United States Code, a United Stat
is, U.S.C.A.
Compton, Annotation Materials, an 7111a
1209
EFTA00226421
18 § 6001 IMMUNITY OF WITNESSES Part 5
1970 Acts. Section 26) of Pub.L. 91-452 provided that: Termination of Civil Aeronautics Board and Transfer of
"The provisions o1bpart of title 18, United States Code, Certain Functions
added by title II o this t [this part], and the amendments All functions, powers, and duties of the Civil Aeronautics
and repeals made y title II of this Act [sections 835, 895, Board were terminated or transferred by former section
1406, 1954, 2424, 2514 and 3486 of this title, sections 15, 87(0. 1551 of Title 49, Transportation, effective in part on Dec. 31,
135e, 499m(1). and 2135 of Title 7, Agriculture, section 25 of 1981, In part on Jan. I. 1983, and in part on Jan. 1, 1985.
former Title II, Bankruptcy, sectioit 1820 of Title 12, Banks
and Banking, sections 32, 33, 49, 77 78u(d), 79r(e), 80a-4t, Termination of Federal Power Commission
80b-9, 155, 717m. 1271, and 1714 of Ile 15, Commerce and The Federal Power Commission, referred to in par. (1) was
Trade, section 825f of Title 16. Conservation, section 1333 of terminated and the functions, personnel, property, funds,
Title 19, Customs Duties, section 373 of Title 21, Food and etc.. thereof were transferred to the Secretary of Energy
Drugs, sections 4874 and 7493 of Title 26, Internal Revenue r certain functions which were transferred to the
Code, section 161(3) of Title 29, Labor, section 506 of Tide Energy Regulatory Commission) by sections
33, Nsfigation and Navigable Waters, sections 405(0 and 171(a), 7172(a). 7291, and 7293 of Title 42, The
2201 Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, sections 157 Public Health and Welfare.
and of Title 45, Railroads, sections 827 and 1124 of Title Subversive Activities Control Board
46, Shipping, section 409(1 ) of Title 47, Telegraphs, Tele-
The Subversive Activities Control Board was established
phones, and Radiotelegraphs, sections 9, 43, 46, 47, 48, 916,
and 1017 of former Title 49, Transportation, and section 1484 by Act Sept. 23, 1950, c. 1024, § 12, 64 Stat. 997, and ceased
to operate June 30, 1973.
of Title 49, Appendix, section 792 of Title 50, War and
National Defense, and sections 643a, 1152, 2026, and 2155(b)
of Title 50, Appendix), shall take effect on the sixtieth day
§ 6002. Immunity generally
following the date of the enactment of this Act (Oct. 15, Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his
1970). No amendment to or repeal of any provision of law privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or pro-
under tide II of this Act shall affect any immunity to which vide other information in a proceeding before or ancil-
any individual is entitled under such provision by reason of lary to—
any testimony or other information given before such day." (1) a court or grand jury of the United States,
Change of Name (2) an agency of the United States, or
References to United States Claims Court deemed to refer (3) either House of Congress, a joint committee
to United States Court of Federal Claims and references to of the two Houses, or a committee or a subcommit-
Claims Court deemed to refer to Court of Federal Claims, tee of either House,
see section 902(b) of Pub.L. 102-572, set out as a note under
section 171 of Title 28. Judiciary. and Judicial Procedure. and the person presiding over the proceeding commu-
nicates to the witness an order issued under this title,
Savings Provisions the witness may not refuse to comply with the order
Amendment by section 314 of Pub.L. 95-598 not to affect on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination;
the application of chapter 9 [6 151 et seq.], chapter 96 but no testimony or other information compelled un-
[6 1961 et seq.] or section 2516, 3057, or 3284 of this title to der the order (or any information directly or indirectly
any act of any person (1) committed before Oct. 1, 1979, or derived from such testimony or other information)
(2) committed after Oct. 1, 1979, in connection with a case may be used against the witness in any criminal case,
commenced before such date, see section 403(d) of Pub.L.
except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false state-
95-598, set out preceding section 101 of Title II, Bankruptcy.
ment, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.
Amendment or Repeal of Inconsistent Provisions (Added Pub.L. 91-452, Title iI, § 20I(a), Oct. 16, 1970, 84
Section 259 of Pub.L. 91.452 provided that "In addition to Stat. 927, and amended Pub.L. 103-322, Title DOCIII,
the provisions of law specifically amended or specifically 330013(4), Sept- 13. 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)
repealed by this title [see Effective Date note set out under
this section), any other provision of law inconsistent with the § 6003. Court and grand jury proceedings
provisions of part V of title 18, United States Code (added by (a) in the case of any individual who has been or
title H of this Act) [this part), is to that extent amended or may be called to testify or provide other inforthation
repealed." at any proceeding before or ancillary to a court of the
United States or a grand jury of the United States,
Abolition of the Atomic Energy Commission
the United States district court for the judicial district
The Atomic Energy Commission was abolished and all in which the proceeding is or may be held shall issue,
functions were transferred to the Administrator of the Ener- in accordance with subsection (b) of this section, upon
gy Research and Development Administration (unless other-
the request of the United States attorney for such
wise specifically provided) by section 5814 of Title 42, The
Public Health and Welfare. The Energy Research and district, an order requiring such individual to give
Development Administration was terminated and functions testimony or provide other information which he re-
vested by law in the Administrator thereof were transferred fuses to give or provide on the basis of his privilege
to the Secretary of Energy (unless otherwise specifically against self-incrimination, such order to become effec-
provided) by sections 7151(a) and 7293 of Title 42. tive as provided in section 6002 of this title.
Compiete Annotation Materials, sae Title ta, US.CA.
1210
EFTA00226422
Ch. 601 IMMUNITY OF WITNESSES 18 § 6005
(h) A United States attorney may, with the approv- § 6005. Congressional proceedings
al of the. Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney (a) In the case of any individual who has been or
General, the Associate Attorney General, or any des- may be called to testify or provide other information
ignated Assistant. Attorney General or Deputy Assis- at any proceeding before or ancillary to either House
tant Attorney General, request an order under subsec- of Congress, or any committee, or any subcommittee
of either House, or any joint committee of the two
tion (a) of this section when in his judgment— Houses, a United States district court shall issue. in
(I) the testimony or other information from such accordance with subsection (b) of this section, upon
individual may be necessary to the public interest; the request of a duly authorized representative of the
and House of Congress or the committee concerned, an
order requiring such individual to give testimony or
(2) such individual has refused or is likely to provide other information which he refuses to give or
refuse to testify or provide other information on the provide on the basis of his privilege against self-
basis of his privilege against self-incrimination. incrimination, such order to become effective as pro-
(Added Pub.L. 91-452, Title II, § 201(a), Oct. 15 1970, 84 vided in section 6002 of this title.
Stat 927, and amended Pub.L. 100-690, Title VII, § 7020(e), (b) Before issuing an order under subsection (a) of
Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub.L. 103-322, Title XXXIII, this section, a United States district court shall find
§ 330013(4), Sept 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.) that—
(1) in the case of a proceeding before or ancillary
§ 6004. Certain administrative proceedings
to either House of Congress, the request for such
(a) in the case of any individual who has been or an order has been approved by an affirmative vote
who may be called to testify or provide other informa- of a majority of the Members present of that
tion at any proceeding before an agency of the United House;
States, the agency may, with the approval of the (2) in the case of a proceeding before or ancillary
Attorney General, issue, in accordance with subsection to a committee or a subcommittee of either House
(b) of this section, an order requiring the individual to of Congress or a joint committee of both Houses,
give testimony or provide other information which he the request for such an order has been approved by
refuses to give or provide on the basis of his privilege an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of
against self-incrimination, such order to become effec- the full committee; and
tive as provided in section 6002 of this title. (3) ten days or more prior to the day on which
the request for such an order was made, the Attor-
(b) An agency of the United States may issue an
ney General was served with notice of an intention
order under subsection (a) of this section only if in its to request the order.
judgment—
(c) Upon application of the Attorney General, the
(1) the testimony or other information from such United States district court shall defer the issuance of
individual may be necessary to the public interest; any order under subsection (a) of this section for such
and period, not longer than twenty days from the date of
the request for such order, as the Attorney General
(2) such individual has refused or is likely to may specify.
refuse to testify or provide other information on the (Added Pub.L. 91-452, Title 1I, § 201(a), Oct 15, 1970, 84
basis of his privilege against self-incrimination. Stat. 928, and amended Pub.L. 103-322, Title )(MULL
(Added Pub.L. 91-452, Title 11, § 201(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 330013(4), Sept 13, 1994, 108 Stat 2146; Pub.L. 104-292,
Stat. 927, and amended Pub.L. 103-322, Title Mill, 5, Oct ii, 1996, 110 Stat 3460; Pub.L. 104-294, Title Vi,
330013(4), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.) § 605(o), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3510.)
Complete Annotation Materials, see Title 18, U.S.CA.
1211
EFTA00226423
Memorandum
Subject
Changes to Child Exploitation Statutes in September 26, 2006
Title 18
From
To
R. Alexander Acosta AUSA
Thomas Mulvihill
Jeffrey Sloman cc: Anne Schultz
Kenneth Now
Robert Waters
Andrew Lourie
Roger Stefin
Karen Atkinson
Rolando Garcia
Bruce Brown
Richard Boscovich
Barbara Martinez
On July 27, 2006, Congress enacted the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of
2006. President Bush signed the Act into law on the same day. The Act made some dramatic
changes to a number of sections in Title 18 - both sections that traditionally fall within "child
exploitation" laws and other seemingly unrelated sections. The Act also created a series of new
crimes that are expected to have a large impact on the District.
This memo is meant to update you on the most pressing issue which is the changes that
impact child exploitation crimes committed after July 27, 2006'.
A. Changes to Mandatory Minimum and Maximum Sentences.
1. 18 U.S.C. § 1001 - False Statements
The statutory maximum of5 years' imprisonment has been increased to 8 years if "the matter
relates tom offense under chapter 109A [§§ 2241-2248],109B [new § 2250], 110 [§§2251- 2260],
or 117 [§§ 2421-2427], or Section 1591 [sex trafficking of children]".
The Act immediately became effective, but the changes do not appear in the
pocket pan for West's Federal Criminal Code and Rules. Because that book is most frequently
referred to by AUSAs, many prosecutors may be unaware of the changes.
Exhibit 16
EFTA00226424
2. 18 U.S.C. § 1591 - Sex Trafficking of Children
There arc new statutory minimums and maximums for all of the categories of violations of
Section 1591:
(a) if the offense was effected by force, fraud, or coercion, or if the minor was under the age
of 14, the minimum sentence is 15 years, up to a maximum of life;
(b) if force, fraud, and coercion were not used and the minor was between 14 and 17, the
minimum sentence is 10 years. up to a maximum of lift.
3. 18 U.S.C. § 2241 - Aggravated Sexual Abuse
Whoever crosses a state line with the intent to engage in a sexual act with a child under 12,
or whoever, in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a federal
prison, engages in a sexual act with a child between the ages of 12 and 15 by force, threat of force,
rendering the victim unconscious, or by administering a drug or intoxicant to the victim, shall be
imprisoned not less than 30 years, up to a maximum of life. 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c).
4. 18 U.S.C. § 2242 - Sexual Abuse
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a
federal prison, engages in a sexual act with an adult by force, threat of force, or with a person
mentally incapable of appraising the nature of the situation or a person physically incapable of
refusing to participate, faces a maximum term of life imprisonment.
5. 18 U.S.C. § 2243 - Sexual Abuse of a Minor or Ward
Whoever, in the special jurisdiction of the United States, engages in a sexual act with a
person between 12 and 15 or with a prisoner, faces up to IS years' imprisonment.
6. 18 U.S.C. § 2244 - Abusive Sexual Contact
If a person engages in "sexual contact" in the special jurisdiction of the United States, he or
she faces the following sentences:
(a) with a child under 12 or with a child between 12 and 15 by force, threats, or by
incapacitating the victim, up to life imprisonment;
(b) with an adult by force, threats, or with a person incapable of consenting, up to 3 years'
imprisonment;
(c) with a child between 12 and 15 or with a prisoner, up to 2 years' imprisonment.
2
EFTA00226425
7. 18 U.S.C. § 2245 - Offenses Resulting in Death
The death penalty now applies to a person who commits murder in the course ofan offense
under Chapter I 09A, or section 1591, 2251, 225IA, 2260, 2421, 2422, 2423, or 2425.
8. 18 U.S.C. § 2251 - Sexual Exploitation of Children
Section 2251 addresses the sexual exploitation of children for the production of child
pornography (subsection (a)); allowing one's child or ward to engage in sexual conduct for the
production of child pornography (subsection (b)); sexually exploiting a child outside the United
States to create child pornography for importation into the United States (subsection(c)); andposting
or publishing an advertisement or notice offering to receive, exchange, buy, produce, create, or
distribute child pornography (subsection (d)). The statutory sentencing limits have remained the
same (15 to 30 years for a first offense, 25 to 50 years for a second offense, and 35 to life for a third
offense), but Congress now imposes a range of 30 years to life or death if the offense results in the
death of a person.
9. 18 U.S.C. § 2252 - Activities Relating to Material Involving the Sexual
Exploitation of Minors
Violations of2252(aX1), 2252(aX2) and 2252(aX3), which cover transporting, distributing,
receiving, selling, or possessing with intent to sell, still carry statutory imprisonment ranges of 5 to
20 years for the first offense, and 15 to 40 years for a second offense. Violations of 2252(aX4),
which addresses possession ofchild pornography keeps the statutory range of0 to 10 years for a first
offense and 10 to 20 years for a second offense. The penalty provisions of 2252(b)( I ) and
2252(bX2) have been amended to expand the definitions of "prior conviction" to include sex
trafficking of children.
10. 18 U.S.C. § 2252A - Activities Relating to Child Pornography
The statutory sentencing ranges have not changed, but this section also was amended to
include sex trafficking of children as a "prior conviction."
11. 18 U.S.C. § 2252B - Misleading Domain Names on the Internet
The statutory maximum sentence for a violation of §2252B(b) - the knowing use of a
misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a minor into viewingharmful material - has been
increased to 10 years.
12. 18 U.S.C. § 2258 - Failure to Report Child Abuse
The failure of a professional who works on federal land or a federally-operated facility to
report child abuse now faces a maximum of I year in prison.
3
EFTA00226426
13. 18 U.S.C. § 2260 - Production of Child Pornography for Importation into the
United States
Violations of Section 2260(a) - use of a minor outside the United States to create child
pornography meant to be imported into the United States - will now be punished under the
sentencing scheme in 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e) - 15 to 30 for the first offense. 25 to 50 for the second.
and 35 to life for the third, and death or 30 to life if the offense results in the death of a person.
Violations of2260(b)- receiving, distributing, transporting, selling or possessing with intent
to distribute child pornography meant for importation into the United States - is punished under the
sentencing scheme in 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(I) - 5 to 20 for the first offense and 15 to 40 for a second
offense.
14. 18 U.S.C. § 2422 - Coercion and Enticement
The statutory sentence limits for using the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign
commerce to persuade a minor to engage in prostitution or other sexual activity, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2422(b). have increased to 10 years to life.
15. 18 U.S.C. § 2423 - Transportation of Minors
The mandatory minimum and maximum sentences for violations of2423(a) - transportation
ofa minor with the intent that the minor engage in prostitution or other criminal sexual activity-also
has been raised to 10 years to life.
B. Changes to Sentencing Enhancements and Classification.
1. 18 U.S.C. § 2260A - New Enhancement for Registered Sex Offenders
The Act created a new section, 2260A, which creates a ten-year consecutive sentence for a
violation "involving a minor" under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201, 1466A, 1470, 1591, 2241, 2242, 2243,
2244, 2245, 2251, 2251A, 2260, 2421, 2422, 2423, and 2425, if the crime was committed while the
defendant was required to register as a sex offender. Although not explicitly stated in the
Amendment, this enhancement probably applies only to crimes ofconviction involving a real minor
(as opposed to an undercover officer) and, as a best practice, the AUSA should file a Sentencing
Notice similar to a 21 U.S.C. § 851 Notice.
2. 18 U.S.C. § 3559 - Sentencing Classification of Offenses
Section 3559(d) was added in 2004 mandating death or life imprisonment for the commission
ofa violent felony or a violation ofSection 2422, 2423, or 2251, if the victim was less than 14 years
old, the victim died, and the defendant acted with the intent, to kill or seriously injure the victim or
in reckless disregard for human life.
4
EFTA00226427
3559(e) also was added in 2004 to impose mandatory life imprisonment if the defendant has
a prior sex conviction with a real minor victim and the crime of conviction is a sex offense with a
real minor victim. The Adam Walsh Act added 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (sex trafficking ofchildren) to the
definition of "sex offense."
The Adam Walsh Act also added 3559(f) which creates mandatory minimum sentences for
violent crimes against children under 18. These mandatory minimums override the maximums and
minimums in the statute creating the offense unless the sentence there is greater. If the offense is
the murder of a minor, the defendant must be sentenced between 30 years and life, unless death is
imposed. 18 U.S.C. § 3559(f)(I ). If the offense is kidnapping or maiming, the defendant must be
sentenced between 25 years and life. 18 U.S.C. § 3559(0(2). And if the crime of violence results
in serious bodily injury, or if a dangerous weapon was used during and in the relation to the offense,
the defendant must be sentenced between 10 years and life. 18 U.S.C. § 3559(0(3).
3. 18 U.S.C. § 3563 - Conditions of Probation
The Act changed one mandatory condition ofprobation and added a discretionary condition.
Section 3563(aX8) now mandates that, for any person required to register under the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act, the Court must impose the condition that the person comply with
the requirements of that Act. Section 3563(bX23) creates a new discretionary condition to allow
probation officers and law enforcement officers to search the person, residence, vehicle, and
computer of any registered sex offender at any time upon reasonable suspicion of a violation of
probation or other unlawful conduct.
4. 18 U.S.C. § 3583 - Supervised Release
The Act made four significant changes to supervised release. First, the sexual offense
defendant's compliance with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is a mandatory
condition. § 3583(d). Second, the Court can order, as a discretionary condition ofsupervised release,
that the sexual offense defendant submit to a search at any time based upon a reasonable suspicion
of a violation of supervised release or other criminal activity. § 3583(d)(3). Third, in 2003, Section
3583(k) was amended to provide a maximum of lifetime supervised release for certain child
exploitation offense. The Adam Walsh Act expands the crimes for which lifetime supervised
release applies and also imposes a mandatory minimum of five years' supervised release for
these offenses of conviction: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2241, 2242, 2243, 2244, 2245, 2250, 2251,
2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, 2423, and 2425. Fourth, if a sex offender violates his
supervised release by committing one of a list of offenses, the Court must revoke the term of
supervised release and impose a term of at least 5 years' imprisonment. §3583(k).
INB: BECAUSE SECTIONS 3563 AND 3583 NOW MAKE SEX OFFENDER
REGISTRATION A MANDATORY SENTENCING TERM, AS A BEST PRACTICE PLEA
AGREEMENTS AND THE PLEA COLLOQUY SHOULD INFORM DEFENDANTS THAT
THIS WILL BE PART OF THEIR SENTENCE.]
5
EFTA00226428
5. 18 U.S.C. § 3592 - Mitigating and Aggravating Factors in Determining Whether to
Impose a Sentence of Death
Section 3592 (c)(1) has been amended to included a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2245 as an
aggravating factor for a homicide case.
C. Creation or Expansion of Federal Offenses
1. 18 U.S.C. § 1201 - Kidnapping
The Adam Walsh Act filled a jurisdictional gap in Section 1201. Now there is federal
jurisdiction over a kidnapping offense if the victim was transported in interstate or foreign
commerce, whether or not the victim was alive when the transportation began, or if the perpetrator
travels in interstate or foreign commerce, during or in furtherance ofthe offense, or if the perpetrator
uses the mail or any means, facility, or instrumentality of interstate of foreign commerce during or
in furtherance of the offense.
2. 18 U.S.C. § 1465 - Production and Distribution of Obscene Materials
Section 1465 has been expanded to prohibit producing obscene materials "with the intent to
transport, distribute, or transmit in interstate or foreign commerce."
3. 18 U.S.C. § 2250 - Failure to Register as a Sex Offender
The enactment of Section 2250 now makes it a federal criminal offense for certain sex
offenders to fail to register or to update their sex offender registrations. To avoid jurisdictional
problems, Section 2250 only applies to sex offenders who either:
(a) is a sex offender due to a conviction under federal law, the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, the law of the District of Columbia, Indian tribal law, or the law of a U.S.
territory or possession,
or (b) is a sex offender due to a conviction under state, local, or foreign' law and travels in
interstate or foreign commerce, or enters, leaves, or resides in Indian Country.
The punishment for violating Section 2250 is up to 10 years' imprisonment, but if the
offender is found to have committed a crime of violence. then he must serve a consecutive term of
5 to 30 years' imprisonment.
rA foreign conviction cannot be the basis if it was not obtained with sufficient safeguards
for fundamental fairness and due process for the accused.
6
EFTA00226429
4. 18 U.S.C. § 2252C - Misleading Words or Images on the Internet
This new offense is an analog to § 2252B, which prohibits the use of misleading domain
names to induce someone to view obscene material. Section 2252C expands the prohibition to
"embedding" words or digital images into the source code of a website." If those words or images
deceive an adult into viewing obscene material, the penalty is up to 10 years' imprisonment. If the
words or images arc meant to deceive a minor into viewing material harmful to minors, the penalty
is up to 20 years' imprisonment.
5. 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and 2257A - Record Keeping Requirements for Producers of
Pornography
Section 2257 was enacted several years ago to require the producers of adult pornography
to keep records of the names, ages, and other information related to the persons appearing in the
pornography. The Adam Walsh Act amended Section 2257 to make clear that the record-keeping
requirements also apply to internet-based pornography websites and digital images that are never
printed on "film" or "videotape." The Act also criminalized a producer's refusal to allow an
inspection of these records by the Attorney General or his designee. § 22570)(5).
The Act also created Section 2257A, which extends these record keeping requirements to
producers of "simulated sexually explicit conduct." § 2257A(a)( I ).
IX Changes to Court Procedures
1. 18 U.S.C. § 2255 - Civil Remedy for Personal Injuries
Section 2255 has been expanded to allow a person who, while a minor, was a victim
of various child exploitation offenses, to pursue a civil action for personal injury damages -
regardless of when the personal injury occurred. It also raises the presumptive damage amount to
5150,000.
2. 18 U.S.C. § 3142 - Release or Detention Pending Trial
Section 3142 has been amended several times in recent years to create a presumption of
detention in child exploitation cases. The Adam Walsh Act makes three changes to Section 3142.
First, if a defendant charged with a child exploitation offense or a failure to register as a sex offender
is released on bond, the release order must contain: (I) a condition of electronic monitoring,
(2) restrictions on personal associations, residence, and travel, (3) restraints from contact with
victims and witnesses, (4) reporting requirements, (5) a curfew and (6) prohibitions on possessing
a firearm, destructive device, or other dangerous weapon. § 3142(c).
Second, an AUSA can make a motion for detention based upon risk of flight and danger
to the community in any case involving a crime of violence (which includes crimes in Chapters
I 09A, 110, and 117), an offense with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death and "any
felony
7
EFTA00226430
that is not otherwise a crime of violence that involves a minor victim or that involves the possession
or use of a firearm or destructive device, or involves a failure to register" as a sex offender. §
3142(1).
Third, the factors that the Court is supposed to consider in making its decision on detention
now include whether the offense involved a minor victim or a firearm, explosive, or destructive
device. § 3142(g)(1).
3. 18 U.S.C. § 3299 - Limitations Period
The Act rescinded the statute of limitations for any offense under Section 1201 (kidnapping)
involving a minor victim, and for my felony under chapters I 09A, 110 (except Sections 2257 and
2257A), and 117, and under Section 1591.
4. 18 U.S.C. § 3509 - Child Victims' and Child Witnesses' Rights
The Adam Walsh Act provides a specific instruction regarding the handling and disclosure
of child pornography. The child pornography must remain in the care, custody, and control of the
Government or the Court. § 3509 (m)(1). Notwithstanding Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, a Court shall deny any request by the defense to copy or duplicate any
child pornography, so long as the Government makes the material reasonably available to the
defense, including defense experts. § 3509(m)(2).
5. 18 U.S.C. § 4042 - Duties of Bureau of Prisons
BOP is mandated to provide notice to prisoners about to be released of their obligations to
register as Sex Offenders, and to notify state and local law enforcement of the pending release of a
sex offender.
8
EFTA00226431
1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
2 WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
3
4
5
6
7
8 IN RE: OPERATION LEAP YEAR
9
10 /
11
12 Grand Jury #07-103 (WPB)
West Palm Beach, Florida
13 Tuesday, February 6, 2007
14
15 TESTIMONY
16 OF
17
18
19
20
21 APPEARANCE:
22
23
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
Exhibit 17
EFTA00226432
2
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 - - -
3 The sworn testimony of as taken
4 before the Federal Grand Jury, west Palm Beach Division,
5 701 clematis Street, west Palm Beach, Palm Beach county,
6 state of Florida, on the 6th day of February, 2007.
7 NANCY SIEGEL, Registered Merit Reporter and Notary
8 Public was authorized to and did report the sworn
9 testimony.
10 Thereupon,
11
12 a witness of lawful age, having been first duly sworn by
13 the foreperson, testified on her oath as follows:
14 BY MS.
15 Q please state and
16 spell your name for the record.
17 A It is and I work for
18 the FBI in Palm Beach county.
19 Q Can you spell your last name, please.
20 A I'm sorry, it is
21 Q And I know we have some people in the back
22 having trouble hearing you. You said that you work for
23 the FBI. Can you tell the Grand Jury what particular
24 group you are employed with?
25 A I am with the violent Crimes Squad here in
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226433
3
1 Palm Beach county, I work primarily crimes against
2 children, but have been an agent for the last
3 approximately 10 years.
4 Q Have you received specialized training in the
area of crimes against children?
6 A Yes, I have.
7 Q As part of your employment with the FBI have
8 you been involved in an investigation of Jeffrey
9 Epstein?
10 A Yes, I have.
11 Q And can you tell us who Jeffrey Epstein is?
12 A Jeffrey Epstein is an investment advisor who
13 has a part-time residence in the town of Palm Beach, he
14 has got multiple residences across the country to
15 include a ranch in New mexico, an island in the virgin
16 isles, and multiple aircrafts, two airplanes and a
17 helicopter to be exact, and --
18 Q And where is his primary residence?
19 A His primary residence, he has an office in New
20 York, but his primary residence I believe is the island.
21 Q In the virgin islands?
22 A Yes.
23 Q He also has a home in New York, correct?
24 A Yes.
25 Q How is it that you started investigating
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226434
4
1 Mr. Epstein?
2 A The Palm Beach police Department in March of
3 2005 initiated an investigation on Mr. Epstein involving
4 multiple underage females that had visited Mr. Epstein's
5 residence and had performed sexual massages or massages
6 for Mr. Epstein of a sexual nature.
7 Mr. Epstein paid the underage females anywhere
8 from 200 to $400, that investigation was around an 8 to
9 10-month investigation, and at that point we became
10 involved in about July of 2006.
11 Q And once the case was presented to you by the
12 Palm Beach Police Department did the FBI open its own
13 investigation?
14 A Yes, yes, we initiated our investigation in
15 July of 2006, we took a look at focusing in on the
16 underage minors and in our investigation we interviewed
17 many of the girls that were underage and we did an
18 independent investigation issuing Grand Jury subpoenas
19 as well as administrative subpoenas getting different
20 documents of financial records, telephone analysis,
21 flight manifests, looking to see if Mr. Epstein engaged
22 in sexual activity with these females.
23 Q All right. And just so the Grand Jury is
24 clear, were some of the girls who went to Mr. Epstein's
25 house 18 or older?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226435
5
1 A Yes.
2 Q And then there were some that were under the
3 age of 18, correct?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And as part of the federal investigation did
6 you have to investigate what we call the interstate
7 nexus aspect of the case?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And can you explain to the Grand Jury what
10 that is?
11 A we looked at -- Mr. Epstein, as I mentioned
12 earlier, has two aircrafts, and we focused in on the
13 year 2004, 2005, he took approximately 60 trips to his
14 residence in Palm Beach, the majority of that time
15 focusing in on his assistant's cell phone, which his
16 assistant's name is we took a look at her
MS
17 cell phone records and the majority of the times that
18 Mr. Epstein would fly into Palm Beach Mrs. ms. Kellen
19 would contact many of our underage victims either prior
20 to coming into Palm Beach, the day of, the day before,
21 even the day after, and certainly throughout the time
22 that Mr. Epstein was at his residence in Palm Beach.
23 Q And from the interviews of the girls that have
24 been conducted, what was the subject of those telephone
25 calls?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226436
6
1 A can you restate the question?
2 Q Sure. From the interviews of the girls that
3 have been conducted, what was the subject matter of the
4 telephone calls Irom
S A would schedule the underage girls
6 to come and work, perform the massages for Mr. Epstein,
7 so she was responsible, she as well as another
8 assistant, , they were his personal
9 assistants who would set up appointments for Mr. Epstein
10 for the girls to come and perform their sexual massages.
11 Q All right. Is lso considered a
12 target of this investigation?
13 A Yes, she is.
14 Q And I will just I will spell
15 or the Grand Jury. The irst name is
16 nd the last name is spelled
17 , and does IIIIIIIIIIIIIhave a new last
18 name?
19 A Yes, she does, she is married and her name is
20
21 Q Fa at least a subject of
22 this investigation, in other words, you are
23 investigating her activity?
24 A we are looking at that.
25 Q In addition to those two assistants, from the
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226437
7
1 interviews of the girls, is there anyone else who is
2 associated with Mr. Epstein who is thought to be
3 involved in this activity?
4 A has been referred to as his
5 companion, girl Iriend, personal assistant, she through
6 the testimony of the girls has engaged in sexual
7 activity with at least three of the underage minors.
8 Q And So Ms.
9 Marcinkova is also at least a subject of the
10 investigation, correct?
11 A Yes, she is.
12 Q Now, as part of this investigation you
13 mentioned that subpoenas were issued on behalf of either
14 the old Grand Jury or this Grand Jury.
15 Can you run through what subpoenas have been
16 issued and what documents have been received in response
17 to that?
18 A Sure. We issued a Grand Jury subpoena to
19 colonial Bank and we received financial records on
20 credit card accounts and individuals.
21 we subpoenaed washington Mutual and they did a
22 search and were unable to locate records at this time.
23 we issued a Grand Jury subpoena for Capital One and
24 served that and that is still unresolved at this time
as
25 far as them providing documents to us.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226438
8
1 we have subpoenaed chase credit card and we
2 have received documents from chase. we have subpoenaed
3 two businesses that Mr. Epstein has at least partial
4 ownership or associated to, Hyperion Air, Inc. and JEGE,
5 Inc., they were issued subpoenas and they have provided
6 documentation to us.
7 we have subpoenaed Mr. David Rogers, who is a
8 pilot of Mr. Epstein's, and we have received
9 documentation from mr. Rogers. we have subpoenaed DTG
10 Operations, who is doing business as Dollar Rent-A-Car,
11 and we have received car rental agreements and financial
12 records from that business.
13 we have subpoenaed Royal Palm Beach High
14 school and have received documentation regarding the
15 students' records. We have subpoenaed three or four of
16 the victims, being the first, and we have
17 received a bathing suit from
18 we issued a Grand Jury subpoena to
19 Miller, we actually have issued three subpoenas,
20 and we are still working on resolving her Grand Jury
21 material as well as testimony.
22 we have issued a subpoena, we
23 have issued -- she also is one of our underage victims.
24 we've issued Reimer Employment Agency a Grand Jury
25 subpoena and we have received documentation, that is an
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226439
9
1 employment agency located on the island of Palm Beach.
2 we have subpoenaed the Palm Beach Police
3 Department for their evidence in this case and we have
4 received that. By the way, that is the only thing that
5 I did not bring with me today, I brought everything
6 else, but it is rather a lot of evidence, so we will
7 probably be bringing that to you another time.
8 we have issued the Clerk of Courts of the
9 State of Florida for Grand Jury transcripts in the state
10 matter and we have received those. we have issued the
11 Good Samaritan Hospital lor billing records and we have
12 received those.
13 we have issued a Grand Jury subpoena to the
14 Dalton school located in New York and at this time they
15 do not have the records we have requested or could not
16 locate those.
17 We have issued a Grand Jury subpoena to Extra
18 Touch Flowers located here in west Palm Beach and we
19 have received documentation from them. We issued a
20 Grand Jury subpoena to Bill Hammond, another pilot for
21 Mr. Epstein, we have spoken with him.
22 we have issued a Grand Jury subpoena to Larry
23 Visoski , another one of Mr. Epstein's pilots, and we
24 have received documentation as well as spoken to him.
25 We have issued a Grand Jury subpoena to Janusz
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226440
10
1 Banasiak, who is the property manager currently for
2 Mr. Epstein at his Palm Beach residence, and we have
3 received documentation as well as spoken to him, and we
4 have issued a Grand Jury subpoena to Adriana mucinska
5 and have received some documentation and are still
6 awaiting a response.
7 Q Now, you mentioned that you didn't bring with
8 you the evidence that you received from the Palm Beach
9 Police Department, but did you bring with you all of the
10 other evidence that was received in response to the
11 subpoenas?
12 A I have.
13 Q And is that evidence in the two boxes that are
14 here in the front?
15 A Yes.
16 Q we will bring all of this back to you when we
17 present the indictment, but would anyone like to look at
18 any of the documentation today?
19 A GRAND JUROR: what does the documentation
20 constitute, basically, the subpoenas?
21 THE WITNESS: It is primarily business
22 records, flight manifests, stuff that came from him
23 traveling to and from Palm Beach, credit card
24 records, the businesses as far as the rental
25 agreement which involves some of the underage girls
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226441
11
1 with the rental cars, and flower shop, you know.
2 A GRAND JUROR: will we have an opportunity
3 later to go through these it we need to?
4 Yes, we will bring them when
5 we present the indictment. Yes, ma'am.
6 A GRAND JUROR: If I should hold this for
7 later let me know, she mentioned the hospital
8 records were subpoenaed, could more information
9 about why they were subpoenaed be provided at this
10 time?
11 BY al
12 Q You can answer that.
13 A One of the girls that was an underage that
14 was underage at the time that is involved with
15 Mr. Epstein has had a baby and we were interested and
16 wondering if possibly he was the father of that baby,
17 which at this time we do not believe he was.
18 A GRAND JUROR: Thank you.
19 : A question?
20 A GRAND JUROR: Did the flight manifest show
21 passengers on the plane?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, they d0.
23 A GRAND JUROR: were any of the passengers the
24 underage girls that were a target of the
25 investigation?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226442
12
1 THE WITNESS: At this time we have not
2 associated any of these underage girls as being the
3 passengers. The flight manifests, sometimes the
4 pilot if they did not know who the passenger was
5 would put one passenger or one female, one male,
6 these were private planes and they, you know, may
7 not have felt like they can go up and ask, but we
8 don't have any evidence at this time to believe
9 that they were any of our victims.
10 : Any follow-up? Any other
11 questions from the Grand Jury? Yes, ma'am.
12 A GRAND JUROR: The records that you
13 subpoenaed from the high school, what were they
14 used for or why were they instrumental in the
15 investigation?
16 THE WITNESS: Those are the girls' school
17 records and we are just looking at the girls'
18 records.
19 A GRAND JUROR: Absenteeism?
20 THE WITNESS: Just looking at some of their
21 grades and performances and how they did in school .
22 Ladies and gentlemen, before
23 we continue, the witness has mentioned a few names
24 of the minors and that is confidential information,
25 obviously everything that you hear within these
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226443
13
1 walls is confidential .
2 BY
3 Q Now, , after -- in
4 addition to issuing the subpoenas, you mentioned that
5 one of the subpoenas was to the Palm Beach Police
6 Department. Did you review any of the evidence that
7 they collected?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And can you, for example, did the Palm Beach
10 Police Department interview any girls?
11 A Yes, they did, they interviewed several of the
12 girls, most of the girls, they took taped statements
13 from the girls either in the form of a tape-recorder or
14 through video.
15 Q And you have reviewed some of those
16 interviews, correct?
17 A Yes, we have.
18 Q And has the FBI performed any interviews?
19 A Yes, we have, we have performed interviews of
20 past and current employees of Mr. Epstein as well as
21 focusing in on the girls, the girls that were underage
22 at the time of the sexual activity, we wanted to
23 determine with these girls, again, the sexual activity
24 that took place with Mr. Epstein as well as how old they
25 were at the time, if they traveled with mr. Epstein, any
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226444
14
1 gifts that they may have gotten, so we did reach out to
2 several of the underage minors and gathered more
3 information Irom them.
4 Q And through the FBI'S investigation has the
5 FBI identified additional victims that perhaps the state
6 police officers did not know about?
7 A Yes, we are still trying to identify, get
8 first names of girls and going back and looking through
9 school yearbooks and attempting to try to locate friends
10 of friends, so we are still in the process, when you
11 interview one of the girls and you ask if any of their
12 friends went, they sometimes will give you other names,
13 so we are in the process of still uncovering victims and
14 reaching out and interviewing additional girls that we
15 believe possibly were underage at the time of this
16 sexual activity.
17 Q If I could ask you to step outside.
18 (The witness was excused from the Grand Jury
19 room.)
20 (Questions posed by the Grand Jury.)
21 (The witness was recalled to testify before
22 the Grand Jury.)
23 BY
24 Q one of the Grand
25 Jurors asked whether there was any evidence of force or
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226445
15
1 coercion.
2 A when talking to the girls they were told that
3 they may have to -- they were going there to perform a
4 massage, possibly model lingerie, they went there
5 sometimes on multiple occasions and they may start of
6 wearing their clothing and then he would instruct them
7 to remove their clothing, the girls either performed
8 these massages in the nude or keeping their underwear
9 on.
10 As they went back again and again on some of
11 the occasions the girls would take off more and more of
12 their clothing, so when they first started they may be
13 fully clothed and then when they came back he would
14 instruct them to remove more of their clothing, so as
15 far as coercion, they were paid 8200 to $400 to perform
16 these massages.
17 They are not trained in performing massages,
18 they don't -- they are not masseuses, but yet iI you ask
19 if they were coerced, they were paid quite a bit of
20 money for 30 to 45 minutes work.
21 Some of the girls, being that they were minors
22 going to his residence, got in over their heads and did
23 not always return or come back, some of our victims did
24 not come back after, you know, they did go down to
their
25 thong underwear and Mr. Epstein did perform sexual
acts
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226446
16
1 either by -- and I didn't get into that, but either by
2 stroking their vagina on the outside of their panties or
3 sometimes inside their panties as well as fondling them,
4 and the girls, many of our victims did not realize that
5 that was what was going to happen.
6 Q And was there one instance where Mr. Epstein
7 actually engaged in vaginal intercourse with a girl
8 against her will?
9 A Yes, he did, one of our victims who had been
10 going there over a lengthy period of time had told
11 Mr. Epstein on several occasions that he was not to do
12 that and he did turn her around, threw her on the
13 massage table and penetrated her.
14 Q A Grand Juror asked how old Mr. Epstein is.
15 A He was 45 at the time that we are looking at
16 him at that time period.
17 Q A Grand Juror asked if you know the proportion
18 of girls who were underage versus 18 or older.
19 A The majority of the girls that we are looking
20 at are victims, well, all of our victims that we are
21 looking at were under the age of 18.
22 As far as all of the girls that have been
23 interviewed, the majority definitely were under 18. To
24 give you a number, I would have to go and count, but I
25 would say in the state investigation there were over 25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226447
17
1 girls identified and more than a majority would have
2 been under the age of 18.
3 Q A Grand Juror asked whether we have obtained
4 Mr. Epstein's DNA and whether there was any DNA testing
5 of the baby that you spoke of earlier.
6 A No, we have not.
7 Q A Grand Juror asked how Mr. Epstein would make
8 contact with the girls, was this done via computer or in
9 some other method?
10 A I am sorry, his personal
11 assistant, would contact, or on some occasions
12 would also contact the girls via their cell
13 phone and we have message pads from the residents that
14 also indicate the girls calling the home in response to
15 some of those phone calls, so they would call,
ilillill
16 would call, the majority of the calls were made
17 by to the girls arranging for these, you
18 know, can you come at this time, can you come at that
19 time.
20 Q And is the cellular telephone a facility of
21 interstate commerce?
22 A Yes, it is.
23 Q And then one of the Grand Jurors asked whether
24 the assistants knew that the girls were underage or
25 committed sex acts.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226448
18
1 Did anybody, have you interviewed anybody who
2 affirmatively told you that they told Kellen their
3 age or what was going on behind closed doors?
4 A No, no, not at this time, not at this time.
5 Q And what leads you to believe that she, for
6 example, IIIIIIIIIIIII knew or should have known what was
7 going on?
8 A There are so many girls that Kellen
9 contacted to give Mr. Epstein massages that have no
10 training in massages, and that was aware
IIIIIIIIIIII
11 that girls were bringing other girls, you know, their
12 friends to do these massages.
13 Kellen was also making appointments for
14 legitimate massages for Mr. Epstein Irom legitimate
15 masseuses that would come and give him massages, so the
16 number of girls, their appearances at the time would
17 lead us to believe that had knowledge that
18 these girls were underage.
19 Q All right. Thank you very much. Those were
20 all the questions from the Grand Jury.
21 A GRAND JUROR: Actually, I have two more,
22 but.
23 m5. VILLAFANA: Okay.
24 A GRAND JUROR: what was the actual age range
25 of these girls?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226449
19
1 THE WITNESS: 14 to I mean.
2 A GRAND JUROR: The other one was, how did Ms.
3 Kellen actually originally get these girls, how
4 were they brought in, I mean how were they, you
5 know, because you said she called them when he was
6 arriving, but how did these girls come into this in
7 the first place?
8 A GRAND JUROR: could she speak louder?
9 we
10 just had a request that you speak louder.
11 A GRAND JUROR: 14 and what?
12 THE WITNESS: Our victims were 14 to 17, but
13 we have girls that are 18, we have girls that are
14 20, we have girls that are in their early 20s, and
15 your question was?
16 A GRAND JUROR: How did she originally get
17 them in in the first place?
18 THE WITNESS: we are focusing in on 2004,
19 2005, we have some evidence to show that this
20 activity was taking place even earlier than that,
21 certainly to include 2003 if you look at the
22 message pads, but focusing in on 2004, 2005, the
23 chain started with one of our minors and from that
24 minor who goes to the house, mr. Epstein tells
25 her -- sees that she is maybe not comfortable
with
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226450
20
1 doing the massage the way he would like it and
2 tells her that she could bring other girls to do
3 the massages and she in fact if she brought another
4 girl she would be paid $200 for just bringing
5 another girl, so there starts the chain, and
6 Mr. Epstein would ask the girls or would ask
7 the girls or their phone numbers so each time, you
8 know, if one of the girls brought a girl and he
9 liked her he would ask for her phone number, ask
10 her to leave the phone number, or
11 would get the phone number and then that girl would
12 maybe bring, because if you brought somebody you
13 didn't have to do the massage, but you also got
14 paid for bringing a new person, so not only if you
15 did the massage would you get anywhere from 200 to
16 400, but if you brought a new female you would
17 receive 200 or $400.
18 A GRAND JUROR: Do you know how she solicited
19 that original minor?
20 THE WITNESS: I don't. well, I know that
21 minor was approached by two individuals and we have
22 interviewed one of those individuals who we can
23 connect back to Mr. Epstein four years, possibly,
24 prior to this, and stated that his job was actually
25 to drive some of the girls to the residence and
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226451
21
1 that's pretty much where we start off.
2 : would the Grand Jury like
3 Special Agent Kuyrkendall to maintain the records
4 that we received in response to the subpoenas?
5 A GRAND JUROR: maintain versus what?
6 A GRAND JUROR: What is our choice?
7 a I don't know that there is.
8 guess I could maintain them, but I don't believe we
9 have secure storage in here.
10 would you like
11 maintain custody?
12 A GRAND JUROR: Yes.
13 You should have something to
14 swear her in as a custodian.
15 (The witness was sworn in as the custodian of
16 records.)
17 Thank you, ladies and
18 gentlemen, I am the last person for today, so you
19 guys are free to go and we will see you probably in
20 a couple of weeks, we will be seeing a lot of you.
21 (The witness was excused from the Grand Jury
22 room.)
23 (The testimony of the witness concluded
24 before the Grand Jury.)
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226452
22
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2
3
4 I certify pages 2 through 21 are a true
5 transcript of my shorthand notes of the testimony of
6 E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall before the Federal Grand Jury,
7 west Palm Beach, Florida on the 6th day of February,
8 2007.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226453
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
IN RE: OPERATION LEAP YEAR
Federal Grand Jury, 07-103
West Palm Beach, Florida
February 27, 2007
APPEARANCES:
ESQUIRE
Assistant United States Attorney
Foreperson
TESTIMONY
OF
CRIGI\AL
Exhibit 18
EFTA00226454
Page 2
1 The sworn testimony of
2 was taken before the Federal Grand Jury, West Palm
3 Beach Division, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
4 State of Florida, on the 27th day of February, 2007.
Court Reporter, was authorized to
6 and did report the sworn testimony.
7
8
9
10
11
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA00226455
Page 3
1 (The witness entered the grand jury room.)
2
3 having been duly sworn by the grand jury foreperson,
4 was examined and testified on her oath as follows:
5 EXAMINATION
6
Q Good morning, special agent Could
8 you restate and spell your name for the record.
9 A It's
10
11 Q Can you remind the grand jury who you are
12 employed by?
13 A The FBI.
14 Q I know that you testified here a few weeks ago.
15 was there anything from that testimony that you wanted to
16 correct?
17 A I did. I was asked by one of you Mr. Epstein's
18 age, and I confused him with another individual in another
19 one of my cases. His birthdate is January 20, 1953. We
20 are looking at the time period of 2004 and 2005. So
21 Mr. Epstein would have been about 51 or 52-years-old, and
22 I believe I told you he was 45. So at the time we're
23 looking during this investigation, he is 51 or 52.
24 Q how did this case first come
25 to the attention of the police?
EFTA00226456
Page 4
1 A In March of 2005„ our youngest
2 identified victim -- her stepmother called the Palm Beach
3 police department and reported that she believed that her
4 stepdaughter had been molested by a male that resided in
5 the town of Palm Beach.
6 Q So today we are going to talk about ■ G?
A Yes.
8 Q And we are using her initial to protect her
9 identity, correct?
io A Yes.
11 Q Can you tell the grand jurdilIIIIIII date of
12 birth?
13 A
14 Q And you mentioned that the call came in from
15 stepmother in March of 2005, correct?
16 A Yes.
17 Q So how old was at that time?
18 A She was 14.
19 Q Where does live?
20 A lives in the Loxahatchee-Royal Palm Beach
21 area here in Palm Beach County.
22 Q At the time, in 2005, what school was she
23 attending?
24 A Royal Palm Beach High School.
25 Q What year was she in school?
EFTA00226457
Page 5
A She was a ninth-grader there.
2 Q You mentioned that her stepmother called the
3 Palm Beach police department. What did the police
4 department do in response to that call?
5 A They wanted to interview I believe it was
6 the next day they went out to where was attending
7 school at that time, which I think was High Ridge. They
8 interviewed ■ at High Ridge and wanted to get her side
9 of what took place.
10 Q Because we'll be referring to this throughout,
11 what was the name of the detective who conducted that
12 first interview?
13 A Detective
14 Q So in March of 2005, detective talked with
15 ever interviewed at any other times?
16 A Yes. She was interviewed -- they talked to her
17 again. She placed some controlled calls for them later
18 that month, we will talk about that later. As well as
19 she was interviewed about a year later in July of 2006.
20 Not interviewed, but she testified before the grand jury
21 for the State of Florida. So she was interviewed by
22 detective Pagan in March of 2005, and then about a year or
23 three or four months later, in July of 2006, she testified
?4 before a grand jury with the State of Florida.
25 Q In preparation for your appearance today, did
SINIP••••
EFTA00226458
Page 6
you have a chance to interview
2 A Yes, I did.
3 Q And when was that?
4 A Last night.
5 Q Back in March of 2005, you mentioned that
6 detective Pagan met with on or more than one
7 occasion?
A Yes.
9 Q If you could give us sort of an overview of what
reported during these interviews, and then if there
11 are specific discrepancies or differences, we will return
12 to those later.
13 A All right. On February 5, 2005, it was a
14 Saturday, and was at 'use, She
IIIIIIII
16 was there with her boyfriend, And because these
16 are minors, we'll refer to them without using their last
17 names, so I'll use those initials.
18 They were ateresidence, and is
19 boyfriend, which is also cousin. So they
20 were all at house, and was on the phone with
21 an individual that ■ refers to as the assistant.
22 described the assistant as a tall blonde.
23 So throughout I'll refer to her as the blonde lady, if
24 that's okay. was unable to recall her name. So
25 is on the phone with the assistant for Jeffrey
•••••••••11,6
EFTA00226459
Page 7
1 Epstein.
2
3
IIIMEI verheareon the phone
describing describing to the lady on
4 the phone. So when gets off the phone, and
5 IIIIIItoth want to know why i was being described to
6 this lady on the phone. becomes upset when
7 asks". if she would like to go to Palm Beach and give a
8 man a massage that she knows. agrees, and this
9 upsets and an argument ensues where
10 go into the bathroom and they argue outside the presence
11 of
12 Q Let me stop you there. Was supposed to be
13 paid for giving this massage?
14 A Yes. told that she would be paid
15 $200 or $300, I believe.
16 You mentioned that boyfriend, and
17 is also cousin, correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q What was idea about why they were
20 arguing?
21 A She has told us that she believed that ust
22 have known what was doing for this man and the work
23 that did for Mr. Epstein, and that is why vas
24 SO upset.
25 So le new that this wasn't just a regular
et....rmi.....••••••••••••••••••il.w., •••••111•1•0•1••••InT•l•••••••.••••••
EFTA00226460
Page 8
1 massage that was going to take place?
2 A Yes.
3 Q So have this argument. What does
4 illlidecide to do?
5 A decides to go.
6 Q Because she wanted to make the $200 or $300?
7 A Yes.
8 Q So tell us then what happened after that
9 meeting?
10 A The next day, February 6 -- they discussed that
11 evening about going the next day. We do have on
12 phone records two calls that were placed. One was placed
13 to cell phone, and the other was placed to
14 Jef rey Epstein's residence the night of February 5.
15 The next dayais contacted a couple of times
16 before Arrives. Each time prior to eing
ill"
17 contacted by... a call is placed by ton
18 cell phone. M M.., I should tell you, is
19 Jeffrey's assistant.
20 So on Sunday a call was placed to
IIIIIIIIII!at
21 and then shortly after that a call was made to El
22 same series occurs again, but this time places a
23 call to Mr. Epstein's residence, and then its called
24 again.
25 Eventually, =comes to MI residence with
EFTA00226461
Page 9
1 another girl in the car,
IMIS So the two of them
2 arrive residence, and they continue over to
atIIIIIII
Mr. Epstein's house.
4 driving with Do you
Q I'll'.is
5 know how they were sitting?
6 A You know, I'm not sure how they were sitting,
'7 but I know that it was a pickup truck that drove,
8 and was the driver. I'm not sure exactly the
9 placement of the other two girls, but they were in the
10 truck.
11 Q And Sas able to describe how they travelled
12 to the island of Palm Beach?
13 A Yes. She gave directions -- you know, the best
14 that she could on how she was able to come to
15 Mr. Epstein's residence.
16 Q Once they arrived at the residence, what
17 happened?
18 A I should have mentioned that either the night
19 before or the day of, there were some things that
IIIIII
20 tells One, she tells illlithat she is to tell, if
21 asked, that she is 18-years-of-age, that she attends high
22 school, that she's in the 12th grade, and I believe it was
23 Wellington High School that she was to say that she went
24 to.
25 Talking to illillast night, ■ told us that
Va....la.....o...10.0•4 4••••••...”.• •
•
EFTA00226462
Page 10
1 once she arrived at the residence hells her that she
2 may possibly be asked to take her clothes off. She also
3 tells her that she can stay in her bra, but she may be
4 asked to take her clothes off. And told us last
5 night that that's when she knew for the first time that
6 she might have to possibly remove her clothes.
7 At this point they proceed to enter the
8 residence. IIIIIIPescribes him as a security person. He
9 approached and asked what they were doing there, and IIIIII
10 said they were there to see Mr. Epstein, or see Jeffrey.
11 He allowed them entry into the kitchen area by the pool,
12 and i describes that area. So now and
13 IIIIllare all sitting in the kitchen. A short time goes
14 by and Mr. Epstein, as well as the assistant, enter the
15 kitchen.
16 Q And I know that you mentioned thatillildid not
17 know the name of the lady who was there in the kitchen,
18 correct?
19 A Right.
20 Q She just described her as a blonde, tall lady?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Was also interviewed about what happened
23 that day?
24 A She was interviewed by the Palm Beach police
25 department.
EFTA00226463
Page 11
Did identify the person who was on the
2 phone with her as
3 A Yes, she did.
4
5 knew
So even though
name?
doesn't know her name,
al
6 A Yes.
7 Q So you mentioned that the three girls are in the
8 kitchen, along with Jeffrey and the person calls the
9 blonde lady?
10 A Yes.
11 Q What happened then?
12 A follows the blonde lady upstairs to
13 Mr. Epstein's bedroom. The blonde lady proceeds to take
14 out a massage table and set it up, prepare it. She also
15 takes out some lotions to be used during the massage.
16 told me last night that the blonde lady asked her to
17 remove her clothing, and then left the room and said that
18 Mr. Epstein would be in shortly.
19 Q What happened after she left the room?
20 A Shortly after that, Mr. Epstein does come into
21 the room and shakes hand. told us last night
22 that Mr. Epstein told her to remove her clothing. He
23 leaves the room and comes back in just a towel, and he
24 tells her again to -- she is at that point -- when he
25 walked in the lirst time she had on her bra and her pants.
EFTA00226464
Page 12
1 When he comes back in, he tells her that she needs to take
2 her pants ofI. So she took her pants of'. So now she's
3 in her bra and underwear.
4 Q At some point did tell any of the people
5 who interviewed her what was running through her mind?
6 A She stated at one point that she was upstairs
7 with him, with the man, and thatMill was downstairs. I
8 guess she says, "What could ilIlli do? She's downstairs,
9 I'm upstairs." So she did what she was asked to do.
10 Q So now you mention that Mr. Epstein is here
11 wearing just a towel, and has removed both her shirt
12 and her pants, is that correct?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Tell us what happens then?
15 A Mr. Epstein gets on the massage table lying on
16 his stomach and instructs how to do the massage. He
17 tells her to put some lotion on her hand and instructs her
18 on how to actually perform the massage. At one point
19 during the massage he tells that she would be more
20 comfortable to get on top of him, so i gets on top of
21 him and straddles Mr. Epstein's back.
1
22 The way describes it is Mr. Epstein is
23 laying on the table, he has a towel covering his bottom,
24 and she is straddling him with her bottom touching the
25 towel and some skin touching his lower back. She was kind
...••••• ••••••• wwl...•••••.•-m••••• •••••••••••A•i••••••••••• •...millialtIONSILWS,••C• _I
EFTA00226465
•
Page 13
1 of sitting -- it sounds like sitting on his rear end, but
2 with part of her skin touching him -- the front of him,
3 but he had a towel across his bottom.
4 Q What happens as she is providing the massage to
5 his back?
6 A The massage goes on. She said the entire
7 massage lasted anywhere from 30 to 45 minutes. At one
8 point Mr. Epstein excuses himself for a few minutes, one
9 or two minutes briefly, illlistates that she can hear
10 Mr. Epstein moaning or groaning, and states that she
11 believes he was, in her words, "wacking off" or
12 masturbating. She didn't say masturbating, she said
13 "wacking off." I am going to use that she believes he was
14 masturbating.
15 Then he returns. At this point he gets back on
16 the table lying on his back and asks her to start
17 massaging his chest. So she begins to massage his chest. I
18 Q Does he keep the towel on?
19 A No, at this point the towel is removed. When he
20 comes back and he gets back on the table, the towel is
21 removed and she is massaging his chest.
22 Q What does he do as she is massaging his chest?
23 A He moves his hand up and down his penis. So he
24 continued to masturbate on the table. He asked at
25 some point during this time, if she would like to make an
EFTA00226466
Page 14
1 extra $100. He tells her that it would not involve doing
2 a massage. agrees. He asked her if he could use a
3 vibrator on her, and she does agree. IIIIIIdescribes it as
4 a purple vibrator that was used on her vagina, and she
S said this goes on for about ten minutes.
6 At some point during that massage the vibrator
7 is not used anymore and digital penetration takes place.
8
dillidescribes him as fingering her.
9 Q What did she say happened when Mr. Epstein
10 digitally penetrated her?
ii A The vibrator is used. At some point he does
12 digitally penetrate her. And these are her words. She
13 looks at him kind of funny, and he sarcastically -- which
14 is her word -- he sarcastically says, "What's the matter?"
15 And she at that point just kind of looks away, and he
16 continues on with the digital penetration. In the last
17 three to lour minutes of that, he begins to masturbate
18 again.
19 At the conclusion of the sexual activity,
20 Mr. Epstein wipes his penis ofI with a towel. i was
21 asked if he ejaculated. She did not see him ejaculate,
22 but saw him wipe his penis off with a towel.
23 Q was able to provide a physical description
24 of Mr. Epstein?
25 A Yes.
EFTA00226467
Page 15
1 Q Including of his penis?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Was she also able to provide a description of
4 her surroundings in that massage area?
A Yes.
6 Q Was that description accurate?
7 A Yes. According to other testimony we have
8 gotten from other victims, yes.
9 Q And a search was performed on Mr. Epstein's
io house?
11 A Yes. The Palm Beach police department did
12 perform a search, and several of the items that were
13 described were found in the house.
14 Q After Mr. Epstein wiped himself off, what
15 happened?
16 A He told that she was getting the extra
17 hundred dollars because he was allowed to use the vibrator
18 on her and had fingered her. The massage had been
19 concluded, the sexual activity had been concluded. He
20 gets up and leaves for a brief moment of time and comes
21 back with $300 and pays the $300. I believe he told
22 that she could see herself out.
23 Q Before we leave that room, when i was either
24 being directed to the room or was inside that room where
25 the massage took place, was there anything in particular
EFTA00226468
Page 16
1 that she noted seeing?
2 A She noted seeing several naked pictures of girls
3 in the room, a mural or pictures of naked girls either
4 exposing their breasts or completely naked.
5 Q While the massage was going on, did Mr. Epstein
6 talk tole
A Yes, he did.
8 Q And did he talk about sexual conquests with
girls?
10 A Yes, he did.
11 Q Once Mr. Epstein has provided ■ with the
12 $300, what did she do?
13 A She went back downstairs and she, and
14 eave the residence. In the car they ask how
a
15 much money she has made, and she tells them $300. IIIII
16 wants to see the money. She shows the money to and
17
illill asks what did she do. At that point itells her
18 that he fingered her, as well as used a vibrator.
19 Q When they left the house, where did they go?
20 A When they left the house, they were on their way
21 to a mall to go shopping with the money that they had
22 received from Mr. Epstein. i had told the night
23 before that she needed some shoes and wanted to go to the
24 mall, and she was going to Mr. Epstein's to pick up some
25 money. That was another reason that she had for going to
EFTA00226469
Page 17
1 Mr. Epstein's house that day, and that they were going to
2 go shopping after she got her money, and that could
3 make some money.
4 Q During that ride, did 'ill realize that
5 received money from Mr. Epstein?
6 A Yes. At some point knows that a
7 received S200, but is unsure that ver gave a
a
8 massage. So at that particular times did not know why
9 she had gotten the $200, because she didn't think that
10 illillhad had time to give a massage.
11 Q In interview, did she explain what she
12 got the $200 for?
13 A told the Palm Beach police department in
14 her interview that she received her $200 for bringing
15 to the house.
16 Q You mentioned that there were these three
17 different time periods that was interviewed: Shortly
18 after the events, at the time of the state grand jury
19 proceedings, and when you met with her, correct?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And there were some discrepancies between the
22 different interviews. Can you explain some of those to
23 the grand jury.
24 A Before we go and get to that, I want to make
25 sure that -- when we discussed what was told in the
1.0•.•••••••••••.1••••.b
EFTA00226470
Page 18
1 car by al that we learned from interview with
2 the Palm Beach police department. don't know if I
3 said that, but I want to make sure you know that we first
4 learned that had been fingered by listening to the
5 interview that was conducted between the Palm Beach police
6 department and not from When I talk later, I
7 just want to make sure you realize that that had not
8 initially come out in interview, but through the
9 interview with
10 So going back. I'm sorry, discrepancies?
11 Q Yes.
12 A I met with last night to discuss some of
13 the discrepancies when looking at what she had talked to
14 detective about in March of 2005 and what she had
15 testified to in the grand jury in July of 2006. Reading
16 the testimony and listening to the tapes, or reading the•
17 transcript, there were a lew discrepancies.
18 One of the first ones we talked about was what
19 had told her about going to Mr. Epstein's house.
20 She tells detective that she was told about the
21 massage, told about getting $200, but that she was not
22 told that she would have to take her clothes ofl. She
23 didn't know she would have to perform the massage naked.
24 When I asked her last night that question, she
25 told me that when she got to the house prior to going into
EFTA00226471
Page 19
1 Mr. Epstein's residence, that did tell her that she
2 may be asked to take ofl her clothes. She also did state
3 that told her she could stay in her bra.
4 So I wanted you to know that there was a
5 discrepancy in what she originally had told detective
6 Pagan and what she told me last night. That would be one.
7 The second discrepancy I wanted to touch on with
8 her was going upstairs and taking off her clothing. When
9 she is in that room, she states to detective Pagan that
10 asked her to remove her clothing, and she took off
11 her shirt. Then Mr. Epstein came in the room, shook her
12 hand and told her to take off her clothes. He leaves, he
13
14
comes back in a towel.
detective
He tells her again.
all tells
in a stern voice, "Mr. Epstein told me to
15 take off my pants." Because she hadn't taken off her
16 pants from the first time that she met him.
17 In her testimony with the grand jury with the
18 state, she tells the grand jury that it was who
19 asked her to remove her clothing. So last night we went
20 over with her who told her to remove what. She had a very
21 hard time recalling exactly. She knew she had gotten down
22 to her bra and underwear. And then at some point, when
23 we're going through the sexual activity, she actually
24 tells me that her underwear was off when he was using the
25 vibrator and digitally penetrating her.
EFTA00226472
Page 20
1 Later in the interview, we tell her about what
2 we have in her testimony to the grand jury and her
3 statements made to detective Pagan. And she really is
4 having a difficult time trying to remember who told her to
5 take ofl her clothes and her pants. As we are walking
6 through the sexual activity, she does recall and states
7 that it was Mr. Epstein who told her to take ofl her
B pants.
9 I guess I'll go to the third discrepancy. Is
10 there anything I left off with that?
11 Q Well, does she report that when the assistant
12 leads or the blonde lady leads her upstairs, that the
13 blonde lady also said, "Get undressed," but that ■
14 didn't get fully undressed?
15 A That's what she said in her statement to the
16 detective, when she gives her first statement. She tells
17 us again last night that that's what she recalled.
18 Q That the lady said first, •Get undressed," but
19 she doesn't get fully undressed. And when Jeffrey comes
20 back, he said, "Take your pants off.•?
21 A Yes. And again, like I said, when we started
a
22 interviewing her and asking her about this, she did have
23 hard time. But when we were walking through the sexual
take off
24 activity, that's when she recalls who told her to
25 her pants. ;
EFTA00226473
Page 21
1 And tell you, when we talked about the
2 sexual activity, and it comes out that she wasn't wearing
3 her underwear when he was digitally penetrating her and
4 using the vibrator, she does not recall how they came off.
5 She cannot remember removing her underwear. She doesn't
6 remember if Mr. Epstein removed her underwear. She knows
7 her underwear was off, but she cannot tell you exactly at
8 what point her underwear was removed.
9 Q Let's talk about the third discrepancy.
10 A The third is the sexual activity, when she was
11 originally interviewed by detective Pagan about the
12 vibrator or being digitally penetrated. When detective
13 Pagan comes and sees her again a few weeks later, she does
14 tell her at that time that a vibrator was used on her.
15 She also says that to the grand jury, she talks about the
16 purple vibrator being used on her.
17 Last night she told us about the purple vibrator
18 being used on her. When we asked her about him digitally
19 penetrating her, and that had told the police
20 department that she had been fingered, told us last
21 night that she was fingered by Mr. Epstein, but that she
22 thought only her and knew about this and that she
23 did not want her father to know that he had fingered her.
24 She didn't want anybody to know, but she especially didn't
25 want her father to know, that that was her business. That
EFTA00226474
Page 22
1 she did not know that had told anybody, she thought
2 it was only her and that knew. She was embarrassed
3 and didn't want anybody to know that.
4 Q Did she become visually upset?
5 A Yes, she began crying when we asked her about
6 being digitally penetrated. When she realized that we
7 knew about that, she became very upset and concerned about
8 her father. She mentioned that her father has read a lot
9 of the reports in the State of Florida, and has followed
to the state's case. She was concerned about even telling
11 us, afraid that he would be able to read in our reports
12 about this.
13 We explained to her that the FBI's reporting is
14 a little bit different than the way the state -- those are
15 public records, and ours is part of our case file.
16 Q In addition to the fact that she had these
17 concerns about her father and she was embarrassed, in your
18 experience of interviewing victims of sexual abuse, is it
19 typical for them to not disclose all of the sexual
20 activity?
21 A Yes, it's very typical. And young girls, they
22 don't want to talk about it. This is just another case of
23 her not wanting to tell exactly what took place.
24 Q After that first visit to Mr. Epstein's house,
25 and the interviews with detective did detective
EFTA00226475
Page 23
I ask to make what are called controlled calls?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Can you explain to the grand jury what a
4 controlled call is?
5 A A controlled call is where we actually have a
6 listening device, where we have an individual place a call
7 to somebody and we are able to record the other person's
B voice and the conversation that takes place between the
9 person that we're having make the call and the person that
10 they are calling.
11 Q Who did detective Il' ask illlito call?
12 A ewes asked to callallon the phone.
13 Q And did she do so?
14 A Yes, she did.
15 Q Can you tell the grand jury when the calls were?
16 A I believe the first call was made towards the
17 end of March, I believe it was March 30. called
18 at the Olive Garden where works. was
19 concerned that
IIIIIII father had found out somehow and
20 that they knew about it. And she refers to him as
21 Jeffrey, but Mr. Epstein.
22 told her that they did not know about
23 Mr. Epstein. Later in the conversation tells her
■
24 that Mr. Epstein would like her to come back and work for
25 him, and that maybe she could work for him tomorrow. So
EFTA00226476
Page 24
1 they agreed that there would be a call between and
2 al tomorrow, that a will call tomorrow.
3 Q Were there calls also made on March 31 of 2006?
4 A There were two calls made on March 31. The
s first one she doesn't connect to The second call
6 that was made a short time later, Haley answers the phone.
7 Again, there is a discussion about ■ coming to work for
0 Mr. Epstein. tells IIIIII- one of the comments that
9 is made is, "The more you do, the more you make." ■ is
10 asking her how much can I make.
11 Again, detective Pagan is there, and is
12 asking how much can I make. is telling
13 that she'll have to ask Mr. Epstein that, that she is
14 going to see Mr. Epstein tomorrow and that she'll talk to
15 Mr. Epstein. There is conversation about ■ and her
16 twin sister possibly coming to Mr. Epstein's house. There
17 is some discussion about her coming to work for
18 Mr. Epstein.
19 Q Just so it's clear, because there were a lot of
20 shes, Illillis telling i that s going to see
21 Epstein the following day?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And that is going to set up a schedule
24 with Mr. Epstein for ■ and her sister to work for him?
25 A Yes.
•
EFTA00226477
Page 25
1 Q On April 1, the following day, did make
2 calls tO
3 A From the Palm Beach police department, they were
4 able to take voice mail messages left by i on
5 phone stating that could come and work on Saturday
6 around 11:00.
7 Q I think you mentioned this last time, but in
8 case you didn't, did the Palm Beach police department do
9 trash pulls at Mr. Epstein's house?
10 A Yes, they did.
11 Q Was there anything of value related to this
12 series of calls that were recovered?
13 A Yes. There was a trash pull done in the
14 beginning of April, and in the trash there was a piece of
15 paper that on it had s name, name, and I
16 believe it was 10:30 listed on the piece of paper.
17 Q It said with Mon Saturday at 10:30?
18 A Yes, it did.
19 Q In addition to the actual recordings of those
20 phone calls and voice mail messages, do you also have
21 telephone records from both cell phone and
22 cell phone that match up?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Just to go back to something that you mentioned.
25 Who actually gave the $300 cash to at the day she was
iI•••••••••••
EFTA00226478
Page 26
at Mr. Epstein's house?
2 A Mr. Epstein.
3 • You mentioned a girl named
4 A Yes.
Was also interviewed?
6 A Yes, she was.
7 Q Was she asked about going with to take
8 girls to Mr. Epstein's house?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Was she asked who the youngest-looking girl was?
11 A Yes.
12 Q What did she say?
13 A She discussed looking young in her
14 interview with the Palm Beach police department.
15 Those are all of my questions
16 for you now. If you could please step outside, I'll
17 see if the grand jurors have any.
18 (Witness excused, and then returned.)
19 BY
20 Q Agent we have just a few questions.
21 One relates to the conversation between Mr. Epstein and
22 ■ about his exploits with other girls. Did Mr. Epstein
23 say anything about the age of those girls?
24 A He said that -- in particular on one case he
25 talked about a young girl that he was in the back seat
EFTA00226479
Page 27
with, and her parents were in the front seat. He told
1
2 that they were having sex in the back seat -- were
3 doing sexual things in the back seat while he was carrying
4 on a conversation with the parents in the Iront seat. I
1
5 guess they were on their way home from a business party.
6 This was one of the stories that he had talked about.
7 Q But at no time did he provide any specific ages
8 about any of those girls?
9 A No.
lo Q What was age at the time she took ■
11 to Mr. Epstein's house?
12 A She was 18.
13 Q Did Mr. Epstein ask Sage anything about her age?
14 A He did. He asked her how old she was, she said
15 she was 18. He asked her what grade she was in, she said
16 she was in the 12th grade. He asked her where she went to
17 school, and she said she went to Wellington.
18 Q I know we will be doing a lot more discussion
19 about ilillillater. But could you tell us briefly how
20 IIIIIILwas recruited to go to Mr. Epstein's house?
21 A was at the beach, and two individuals
22 approached her about making money and giving a massage to
23 Mr. Epstein.
24 Q How old was when she first went to
25 Mr. Epstein's house?
EFTA00226480
Page 28
A Through phone records, we have contact between
2 starting at age 17.
Those are all the questions.
4 Thank you.
(Witness excused, and then returned.)
6 B
7 Q The question was, was there any particular
evidence to suggest that Mr. Epstein knew that was
9 under the age of 18?
10 A I would say through the interviews of the
11 multiple girls that went to Mr. Epstein's house -- the way
12 that having seen last night, and now she's 16 -- this
13 was two years ago -- that 1111111age and behavior -- and
14 again, is that more circumstantial evidence? As far as
15 concrete evidence, no. But just by her appearance and her
16 mannerisms and how I observed her last night at age 16.
17 Q And that's consistent with what said
18 during her statement, correct?
19 A Yes, it is.
20 MS. a Any other questions?
21 JUROR: Did she look 18?
22 THE WITNESS: Does illillook 18? Not in my
23 opinion, sir.
24 MS. All right. Any other questions?
25 Okay, thank you, very much.
EFTA00226481
Page 29
1 (Witness excused.)
2
3
4 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
5
6
I CERTIFY pages 1 to 28 is a true transcript of
7 my shorthand notes of the testimony of
8 before the Federal Grand Jury, West Palm
9 Beach, Florida, on the 27th day of February, 2007.
10 Dated at West Palm Beach, Florida this 18th day
11 of March, 2007.
12
13
14
/77 Al_ 65
I
15
16 Philip W. May, Court Reporter
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA00226482
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL. 3340/
([Phone Redacted]
Facsimile: ([Phone Redacted]
March 15, 2007
DELIVE Y Y HAND
Miss
Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights
Dear Miss
Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense,
you have a number of rights. Those rights are:
(I) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding
involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.
(3) The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court
determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other
portions of a proceeding.
(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court
involving release, plea, or sentencing.
(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case.
(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and
privacy.
Members of the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies,
including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these
rights are protected. If you have an concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at [Phone Redacted], or Special Agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at [Phone Redacted]. You also can contact t e Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in
Washington, D.C. at [Phone Redacted]. That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov.
You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights listed above and, if you
believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for
relief.
Exhibit 19
EFTA00226483
1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
3
4
6
5
COPY
7 RE: OPERATION LEAP YEAR
8
9
10
1 1
12 TESTIMONY
13 OF
14 SPECIAL AGENT
15
16
17
18 Federal Grand Jury 07-103
Federal Building
19 U.S. Courthouse
West Palm Beach, Florida
20 Tuesday, March 20, 2007
21
22 APPEARANCES:
23
Assistant United States Attorney
24
25 Foreperson
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
Exhibit 20
EFTA00226484
2
1 The sworn testimony of SPECIAL AGENT
2 was taken before the Federal
3 Grand Jury, West Palm Beach Division,
4 Building, U.S. Courthouse, Palm Beach County,
5 State of Florida, on Tuesday, March 20, 2007.
6 Paula E. Angelocci, Certified Court
7 Reporter and Notary Public, State of Florida,
8 Official Reporting Service, LLC, 524 South Andrews
9 Avenue, Suite 302N, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
10 33301 , was authorized to and did report the sworn
1 1 testimony.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226485
3
1 (Witness enters the Grand Jury Room.)
2 THE FOREPERSON: You do solemnly swear
3 that the testimony you give will be the
4 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
5 truth, so help you God?
6 THE WITNESS: I do.
7 THE FOREPERSON: Thank you. Please be
8 seated.
9 EXAMINATION
10
1 1 Q Special Agent could you
12 please state and spell your name for the record?
13 A It's It's
14
15 Q Now Special Agent last week
16 or the last time that we met, we discussed two
17 girls, correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Who visited Mr. Epstein's home?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And those were and
22 A Yes.
23 Q Did you obtain photographs of those
24 girls?
25 A Yes, I did.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226486
4
1 Q And do you know approximately when those
2 photographs were taken?
3 A They were taken during the same time
4 period that we are investigating, '04 and '05.
5 There may have been a few in '03, but it was
6 within a year's time of six months within the
7 activity that we are investigating.
8 Q All right. Let me show you what has
9 been marked as Grand Jury Exhibits 1 and 2, and
10 can you tell us what Exhibit 1 is?
1 1 A Exhibit 1 is illiblland it's a
12 photograph of her with her date of birth listed.
13 Q And what is Exhibit 2?
14 A A photograph of with her date
15 of birth as well on it.
16 MS. And I will just pass
17 those to the grand jury.
18 BY
19 Q Now the last time that we were here, you
20 had described how had brought IIIIIIIII
IIIIIIII
21 to Mr. Epstein's home?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Did IIIIIIIIIbring other girls to the
24 Epstein house?
25 A Yes, she did.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226487
5
1 Q And is one of those girls
2 A Yes.
3 Q And what is the date of birth of
4
5 A She was born
6 Q And where did go to high
7 school?
8 A Royal Palm Beach High School.
9 Q And is that the same school that
10 4IIIIIIIIwent to?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And was ver a student at that
13 school?
14 A Yes, she was.
15 Q Tell us a little bit about -- well,
16 first of all, did the Palm Beach Police Department
17 have a chance to interview
18 A Yes, they did.
19 Q And what about yourself?
20 A And I did as well.
21 Q Okay. Tell us, if you will, how
22 started going to Mr. Epstein's house?
23 A was the one who brought to
24 Mr. Epstein's house. told that she
25 may have to remove her clothing and that she could
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226488
6
1 makes $200 if she performed a massage for Mr.
2 Epstein.
3 She also was told by IIIIII that he may
4 try to touch you, but if you are uncomfortable,
5 just tell him no, and she also said that if
6 Epstein asked her age, she was to say she was 18.
7 Q Now that information that you just
8 relayed, who provided that information?
9 A IIIIIM IIM
10 Q And what did --
11 A I'm sorry. provided in the
12 interview to me that information.
13 Q Did also admit that she brought
14 to Mr. Epstein's home?
15 A Yes.
16 Q When did this first occur?
17 A This occurred in -- we believe the first
18 time period was when was 16.
19 Q And is there any telephone records that
20 show communications between and
21 and
22 A Yes.
23 Q And when are those phone records?
24 A Those phone records show up in March of
25 '04 when would be 16.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226489
7
1 Q Let me show what has been marked as
2 Grand Jury Exhibit Number 3, and what is Exhibit
3 3?
4 A This is a photograph of with
5 her date of birth,
6 Q Now you mentioned that in March of 2004
7 and April of 2004, there are these records of
8 phone calls and did say how old she was
9 when she first went to Mr. Epstein's house?
10 A I'm sorry. Did say how old she
11 was?
12 Q Did she tell you or the police officers
13 how old she was?
14 A Yes. I'm sorry. I thought your
15 question was did she tell Mr. Epstein.
16 She told me that she was 16 when she
17 went to Mr. Epstein's house.
18 Q Okay. That is consistent with those
19 phones calls?
20 A Yes, it is.
21 Q Okay. Now during her first visit with
22 Mr. Epstein, what happened?
23 A She went to Mr. Epstein's house.
24 took her there. told her she didn't have
25 her driver's license at that time, which she told
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226490
8
1 her she got her driver's license when she was 17.
2 So drove her to Mr. Epstein's
3 house. She provided Mr. Epstein with a Iew
4 massages. She remained clothed both times that
5 she gave him a massage. At this time, she kept
6 her clothes on.
7 I think one time she was wearing shorts
8 and a T-shirt, maybe the second time she was
9 wearing jeans and a T-shirt. That he constantly
10 grabbed and pulled at her during the massage
1 1 trying to draw her closer to him, but at that
12 time, you know, there was no sexual activity other
13 than the grabbing and pulling.
14 There was no sexual activity that took
15 place on those Iirst couple of massages, and she
16 remained clothed at that time.
17 Q Now after those first few massages, was
18 there a break in time before returns to
19 the Epstein house?
20 A told us that she and had
21 had some kind of a fight or a disagreement, a
22 breakup in their relationship, so there was a time
23 period where she did not go back to Mr. Epstein's
24 house.
25 Q And when -- did there then come a time
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226491
9
1 when she returned to the Epstein house?
2 A Yes. We have phone activity between
3 Kellen and Z. beginning in December
4 of '04.
5 Q And how old was in December
6 of '04?
7 A She had turned 17 at that time. In
8 fact, through the course of the phone records
9 beginning in December of 04 to October of 2005,
10
1 1
we have over 150 phone calls between
and Mr. Epstein's assistant.
IIIIIIIIIII
12 Q What did tell you about the
13 activity that occurred when she started returning
14 in late '04?
15 A When she started giving Mr. Epstein
16 massages after that break, the massages became
17 much more sexual in nature. Mr. Epstein continued
18 to push and there were many times when
19 would perform massages completely nude.
20 Several times, she would stay in her
21 underwear with no bra on, but stated to me that
22 many occasions she performed the massages to Mr.
23 Epstein in the nude.
24
In addition to being unclothed, was
25 there other sexual activity?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226492
10
1 A Yes, there was. during my
2 interview with she became very upset when
3 discussing the sexual activity that took place at
4 that time.
5 She stated that Mr. Epstein had
6 digitally penetrated her. It began first by
7 rubbing her on the outside pf her vagina and then
8 on more than one occasion actually penetrating her
9 with his fingers.
10 He would request her to pinch his
1 1 nipples. He rubbed her breasts as well. She
12 stated that there was a vibrator that was used on
13 her vagina as well, did not penetrate her, but
14 that she described the vibrator as being a , white
15 vibrator with a gray head, and several of the
16 other victims have said the same thing, described
17 it similar to that.
18 Q And just before forget, when you
I
19
20
testified about
IMIE
having a vibrator used on
did
her?
also report
21 A Yes.
22 Q And, again, so the record is clear, when
23 you are talking about these vibrators, they are
24 the large back massager type vibrator?
25 A We have had some girls just describe
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226493
1 1
1 them as a vibrator. We have had some girls just
2 describe them as a back massager and then we also
3 had girls describe them as both, because of the
4 size of it, I think some girls are more aware of
5 what a vibrator would look like due to their ages.
6 You know, I don't know that everybody
7 knew exactly what a sexual vibrator looked like,
8 but they all vibrated, and we have actually had
9 that described, and described it as both,
10 a vibrator slash massager, saying that it was, you
1 1 know, large in nature.
12 Q Okay. Now in addition to using that
13 massager and digitally penetrating was
14 there other sexual activity?
15 A Yes. Several times during the massages,
16 Mr. Epstein would havesstraddle him while
17 he laid on his stomach and then he would reach
18 between her legs and masturbate and
19 occasionally --
20 Q And this is when he was laying on his
21 back not his stomach?
22 A I'm sorry. Did I say that?
23 • You said on his stomach.
24 A He is laying on his back. She's on top
25 of him straddled, and he is reaching between her
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226494
12
1 masturbating, and he has attempted to put his
2 penis on her vagina, never penetrating her, but
3 that was what was described to us by .
4 Q Now when was first interviewed
5 by the Palm Beach Police?
6 A She was interviewed October 6th of 2005.
7 Q And at that time, did she say when her
8 last visit was to Mr. Epstein's house?
9 A Yes, she said October 1st, 2005, was the
10 last massage that she had given Mr. Epstein.
11 Q Is there any other evidence that was
12 recovered from Mr. Epstein's or his household
13 items that would confirm that statement?
14 A We have a message pad. During the
15 search warrant, several of the message pads -- I
16 don't know if we referred to them at this stage.
17 We may not have.
18 We recovered -- well, I shouldn't say
19 we, the Palm Beach Police Department recovered
20 several message pads. They were carbon copy
21 message pads.
22 So we have several of those books from
23 their search warrant and in there, there is a
24 message on October 1st confirming
25 appointment for the mas as well as another
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226495
13
1 girl,
2 Q And is there also evidence that
3 and actually spoke on October 1st
4 before that message?
5 A We have cell phone calls between
6 Kellen and as well as the message which
7 was from to Jeffrey regarding -- confirming
8 the appointment for =' but we have a cell
9 phone call I believe it was a little bit earlier
10 from to or maybe it was to
11 , but it is definitely between the two of
12 them on that same day.
13 Q All right. When was interviewed
14 by the Palm Beach Police Department, did she
15 describe all of the sexual activity?
16 A No, she did not. She did not tell them
17 about the vibrator or the -- she didn't tell them
18 about the vibrator or the penetration.
19 Q And, again, you said that when you
20 brought up -- did you sort of confront her with
21 the idea that more had occurred?
22 A I did, and she was very embarrassed
23 about the vibrator. I asked her at one point if
24 Mr. Epstein had given her any gifts and she got
25 very red in the face and began to tear up and you
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226496
14
1 could see that she was very embarrassed.
2 So we took a little bit of a break, but
3 then she was able to say that Mr. Epstein had
4 provided her as a birthday present a vibrator. So
5 not only was there a vibrator back massager used
6 on her, but at this time -- and I think that's
7 kind of what got talking about the sexual
8 activity that she was able to tell me that, and
9 she was very, very embarrassed, but that Mr.
10 Epstein had given her for her eighteenth birthday
1 1 a vibrator.
12 Q Now you mentioned that that happened on
13 her eighteenth birthday?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And was she able to tell you whether Mr.
16 Epstein knew it was her eighteenth birthday?
17 A She stated that Mr. Epstein provided to
18 her on her eighteenth birthday the vibrator and
19 shortly -- well --
20 Q So before you had said that had
21 instructed to tell everyone that she was
22 18; do you remember that?
23 A Yes.
24 Q But at some point, the people in the
25 Epstein household learned that she hadn't turned
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226497
15
1 18 yet and her birthday was coming up?
2 A Her birthday was coming up.
3 Q And at some point, was a car provided
4
5 A Yes. In October of '05, was
6 having asked Mr. Epstein is she could
7 borrow one of his cars to go to Orlando and he
8 stated that -- at first he said yes, and then he
9 said he would get her a rental car.
10 So contacted a few days
11 later and said that a car had been rented for
12 and that the house manager used the
13 company credit card and picked up that
14 car, and actually when the police interviewed her
15 on October 6th, which was five or six days after
16 the last massage, they were able to see that that
17 Nissan Sentra that had been rented by Mr. Epstein,
18 had that in her possession for at least
19 through January 1st of 2006 and that car was
20 rented by Mr. Epstein for at least that amount of
21 time.
22 Q Did describe how the massage
23 appointments would be made?
24 A Yes, she did.
25 Q And how was that?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226498
16
1 A She stated that , that
2
3
Jill" Jeffrey's assistant, would call her and set
up appointments, and that sometimes she would call
4 her on her cell phone from New York, from the
5 Islands, and say that they were coming into town,
6 was she available.
7 She would also call while they
8 were in town to see if she was available for
9 massages, to give massages to Mr. Epstein, and
10 stated that , who we have identified as
11 called her a few times as well to set
12 appointments up.
13 Q And when those appointments were made
14 how would reach
15 A By phone.
16 Q All right. And whether she was in town
17 or out of town, she would call 's cell
18 phone?
19 A Yes.
20 Q All right. Now was there any -- during
21 the interview with the police department, did the
22 police department ask about what she
23 discussed with Jeffrey Epstein during the
24 massages?
25 A I would have to check the police reports
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226499
17
1 to give specifics on that.
2 Q All right.
3 A My answer to your question is yes.
4 Q Okay. And what did she say were some of
5 !the topics of discussion?
6 A Mr. Epstein asked her questions about
7 herself, asked her if she was a soccer player or
8 that -- Jeffrey knew that she was a soccer player
9 and asked questions about her college, about where
10 she was going to school.
1 1 is currently going to Lynn
12 !University, and she had advised Mr. Epstein that
13 \she would be attending college at Lynn University.
14 So that was a -- but that was her future
15 /plan?
16 A Yes.
17 Q So in other words, did Mr. Epstein know
18 that she was in high school at the time?
19 A Yes, he did. And the Palm Beach Police
20 asked if Jeffrey knew her age and
21 told the Palm Beach Police Department, he didn't
22 care what my age was.
23 Now did describe either to you
24 or to the police department how she would be paid
25 for these massages?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226500
18
1 A She stated she was paid $200 and that
2 she received anywhere from two to $300.
3 Q With every visit?
4 A With each visit.
5 Q Okay. Did she say who would provide her
6 with that money?
7 A She said that Jeffrey paid her at the
a end of the massage.
9 Q All right. You mentioned the gift of
10 the vibrator. Were there other gifts that were
11 given to
12 A Yes. The time period is unclear, but
13 the vibrator was given to her for her eighteenth
14 birthday. There were three sets of bra and
15 underwear, panties, Secret bra and
16 underwear sets that were also given to as
17 gifts from Mr. Epstein.
18 Q Now I know that we talked earlier about
19 the fact that is the person who brought
20 to Mr. Epstein's house. Did ever
21 bring anyone to Mr. Epstein's house?
22 A brought a female by the name of
23 M. and that was a friend of s.
24 Q And let me show you what has been marked
25 as Grand Jury Exhibit 4, and what is Grand Jury
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226501
19
Exhibit 4?
2 A It's a photograph of M. with a
3 date of birth of 6-1-1986.
4 Q How old was M. when took
5 her to Mr. Epstein's house?
6 A took her there in the spring of
7 2005 and was 18 at that time.
B Q Now can you tell us now went
9 about bringing to the house?
10 A told that she could make
1 1 some money giving a massage to Mr. Epstein and
12 and went to Mr. Epstein's house
13 together.
14 The first time that went there,
15 she did not go upstairs and give him a massage.
16 was working that day. But in talking to
17
IIIIIIIfurther, stated that she probably
18 over the period of time between the spring of '05
19 and October of '05, performed around five to ten
20 massages for Mr. Epstein.
21 The first few of those he did not do
22 anything as far as no masturbating, no sexual
23 activity. She would just perform a massage.
24 Q And did that change over time?
25 A Yes, it did. She stated that she
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226502
20
1 performed two to three massages out of those five
2 or ten and in her underwear and bra only, and
3 that he would push her each time.
4 He would just push her to do more and on
5 the third -- I believe she stated the third or
6 fourth massage, he told her that she could make
7 more money if she removed her clothing, because
8 she stayed clothed during the lirst lew massages,
9 and she was paid $200 for each of those massages.
10 On the third or fourth massage, Mr.
1 1 Epstein said that she could make more money it she
12 removed her clothing. So around the fourth or
13 fifth time, she did start taking off her clothing
14 down to her underwear and bra only.
15 Q And then what happened when she was at
16 that point of being unclothed?
17 A She would perform the massage. He
18 attempted to touch her, but she always would say
19 no. At one point, her bra does get undone by Mr.
20 Epstein, but she does keep it up.
21 Q Now that was the extent of his touching
22 Lauren. At some point, did he begin masturbating
23 in front of her?
24 A Yes, he did. Not in the very beginning,
25 but throughout this he did. Now I should tell you
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226503
21
1 that stated to us that because she was kind
2 of reserved or held back as he made advances
3 towards her, she was able to see Mr. Epstein's
4 penis and that he was masturbating, but that he
5 never finished, that he never ejaculated. She did
6 not reel that Mr. Epstein liked her very much.
7 Q But just to sort of compare what
8 said with what said, they both said that
9 at the beginning they remained clothed?
10 A Yes.
1 1 Q And that Mr. Epstein progressively
12 pushed and pushed and pushed for more sexual
13 activity?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Now what was the period of time that
16 went to Mr. Epstein's home?
17 A March of I'm sorry, spring of '05 is
18 when said that she went there and around,
19 you know, the investigation is heating up with
20 Palm Beach, so we know that in September of '05,
21 there was a trash pull done, and in that trash
22 pull there was a message and that was found and it
23 stated -- it had phone number on it and
24 it stated, for a good time call and
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226504
22
1 Q And whose stationery was that?
2 A It was on Jeffrey Epstein's stationery.
3 Q And had Jeffrey Epstein been in a Palm
4 Beach resident close to those dates?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Now is there evidence of telephone calls
7 between and Kellen?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And how many phone calls have you been
10 able to identify?
11 A At this time, there have been 14 phone
12
13 Q All right. And just to compare that to
14 the number of phone calls with
15 A With = there was over 150 phone
16 calls between and
17 Q And that is sort of consistent with the
18 number of massages that did versus the
19 number of massages that did?
20 A It is consistent with especially the
21 activity that was providing Mr. Epstein
22 compared to the activity that would
23 provide.
24 (Thereupon, knocking is heard at the
25 Grand Jury door.)
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226505
23
1 MS. Let me just step out for
2 one moment.
3 (Ms. Villafana exits the Grand Jury
4 Room.)
5 (Ms. enters the Grand Jury
6 Room.)
7 MS. Ladies and gentlemen, I
8 am going to have to take a break now and we
9 will be back either next week or the
10
lollowing week. Thank you very much. You
1 1 are done for the day.
12 (Witness was excused.)
13
14
15 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
16
17 I, Paula E. Angelocci, Certified Court
18 Reporter and Notary Public, do certify that the
19 transcript is a true and correct transcription of
20 my stenotype notes of the testimony of
21 SPECIAL AGENT E. NESBITT taken before
22 the Federal Grand Jury, West Palm Beach, Florida.
23
PAULA ANG LOCCI, CSR #4869
24 Certified Court Reporter
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226506
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
3
4
5
6
7 RE: OPERATION LEAP YEAR
COPY
8
9
10
1 1
12 TESTIMONY
13 OF
14 SPECIAL AGENT E.
15
16
17
18 Federal Grand Jury 07-103
Federal Building
19 U.S. Courthouse
West Palm Beach, Florida
20 Tuesday, April 24, 2007
21
22 APPEARANCES:
23
Assistant United States Attorney
24
25 ore person
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted] Exhibit 21
EFTA00226507
2
1 The sworn testimony of SPECIAL AGENT
2 as taken before the
3 Federal Grand Jury, West Palm Beach Division,
4 Federal Building, U.S. Courthouse, Palm Beach
5 County, State of Florida, on Tuesday, April 24,
6 2007.
7 Paula E. Angelocci, Certified Court
8 Reperter and Notary Public, State of Florida,
9 Official Reporting Service, LLC, 524 South Andrews
10 Avenue, Suite 302N, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
33301 , was authorized to and did report the sworn
testimony.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226508
3
1 (Witness enters the Grand Jury Room.)
2 THE /OREPERSON: You do solemnly swear
3 that the testimony you give will be the
4 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
5 truth, so help you God?
6 THE WITNESS: I do.
7 THE FOREPERSON: Thank you. Please be
8 seated.
9
10 EXAMINATION
11 BY MS.
12 Q Special Agent 1, would you
13 just remind the grand jurors who you are and who
14 you work for?
15 A My name is 1 and I am
16 a special agent with the FBI and I work here in
17 Palm Beach.
18 Q Special Agent 1, can you tell
19 the grand jurors who will be appearing before them
20 this afternoon?
21 A One of our victims, Haley R., who was a
22 minor at the time that she met Mr. Epstein.
23 Q And have you previously testified about
24
25 Yes, I have.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226509
4
1 Q Did you attempt to interview her? She's
2 going to be coming in, and she is not a minor
3 anymore, so what is her full name?
4 A Her name is and I did
5 attempt to interview , and was
6 interviewed by Palm Beach Police Department and
7 because of the statements she provided to the
8 police department, she felt as if she needed a
9 lawyer. So when I attempted to interview her, we
10 ended up going through her lawyer.
1 1 Q And just so the grand jury has a little
12 bit of background, the interview with the Palm
13 Beach Police Department was quite some time ago?
14 A Yes, it was, in the fall of '05.
15 Q And when started that
16 conversation with the police, she was very
17 forthcoming?
18 A Yes, she was.
19 Q Fully cooperative?
20 A Yes.
21 • And what happened in the middle of that
22 interview with the police?
23 A The police just let know that she
24 could be charged because brought some of the
25 girls to Mr. Epstein and the police -- she was
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226510
5
very cooperative, but the police at that point had
2 to let know that what she had done that she
3 could be facing charges.
4 Q And that was after they had told her
5 earlier that she didn't need an attorney present,
6 correct?
7 A Exactly.
8 Q Okay. So this happens to her with the
9 Palm Beach Police Department and did the Palm
10 Beach Police actually present or propose charging
1 1 Ms.
12 A They did get a probable cause affidavit
13 against Haley.
14 And is that why Ms. and her
15 attorney were concerned about her testimony here?
16 A Yes.
17 Now was a subpoena issued for Ms.
18 on behall of this grand jury?
19 A Yes, it was.
20 • And before Ms. would comply with
21 that, did she -- did her attorney request some
22 sort of order?
23 A Yes.
24 • And what did he ask for?
25 A He asked for immunity for Haley.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226511
6
Q And let me show you the order, that is a
2 sealed order in these grand jury proceedings. Now
3 the immunity that has been provided for Ms.
4 keeps her statements that are made here from being
5 used against her?
6 A Yes, it does.
7 Q It doesn't -- if she commits perjury and
8 she lies to the grand jury, can she still be
9 charged?
10 A Yes, she can.
1 1 Q Okay. Could you read that? I know it
12 is only two pages.
13 A Sealed order, on application of the
14 United States Attorneys for the Southern District
15 of Florida and it appearing to the satisfaction of
16 the court that has been called to
17 testify and to provide other information before
18 the United States District Court, the Southern
19 District of Florida, including a grand jury
20 impaneled therein.
21 And number two, that in a judgment of
22 the said United States Attorneys, has
23 refused to testify and provide other information
24 on the basis of her privilege against self
25 incrimination.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226512
1 And that number three, in the judgment
2 of the United States Attorneys, the testimony and
3 other information from Haley made necessary
4 to the public interest.
5 And number four, that the aforesaid
6 application has been made with the approval of the
7 Assistant Attorney General in charge of the
8 criminal division of the Department of Justice or
9 a duly designated acting Assistant Attorney
10 General pursuant to the authority vested in him by
1 1 Title 18, United States Code, Section 6003, and
12 Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Section
13 0. 175 and 0.132, small e.
14 Now, therefore, it is ordered pursuant
15 to Title 18, United States Code, Section 6002,
16 that give testimony and provide other
17 information which she refuses to give or to
18 provide on the basis of her privilege against self
19 incrimination as to all matters about which she
20 may be interrogated before said United States
21 District Court including a grand jury impaneled
22 therein as well as any subsequent proceeding or
23 trial.
24 However, no testimony or other
25 information compelled under this order or any
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226513
8
1 information directly or indirectly derived from
2 such testimony or other information may be used
3 against in any criminal case except a
4 prosecution for perjury giving a false statement
5 or otherwise tailing to comply with this order.
6 It is further ordered that this order
7 shall be sealed in accordance with said Federal
8 Regulations Criminal.
9 BY MS.
10 Q Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure.
1 1 A Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, it's
12 abbreviated, 6, little e, 6, except that a copy of
13 this order shall be provided to counsel for the
14 United States who may disclose the existence of
15 the order to members of the grand jury, to the
16 witness, to the counsel for the witness, and to
17 law enforcement officers engaged in the
18 investigation pending before the grand jury.
19 Those persons may review the order, but
20 may not retain a copy of the order nor may it
21 disclose the existence of the order to any others.
22 Done and ordered the 16th day of April 2007, at
23 West Palm Beach, Florida. The United States
24 District Judge Donald M. Middlebrook, Marie
25 Villafana, AUSA.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226514
9
1 Q All right. So has a copy or has this
2 document been shown to counsel for Ms.
3 A Yes, it has.
4 Q And to Ms.
5 A Yes.
6 Q And will Ms. be here this
7 afternoon?
8 A Yes, she will.
9 Q Have you had a chance to sit with her?
10 A Yes, we have.
1 1 Q And she has been very forthcoming?
12 A She's very cooperative.
Q Okay.
14 MS. I don't have any further
11 questions for the witness. Do you have any
16 questions? All right. Seeing no questions,
17 you are excused and I think that right now
18 you are set to come back at 1 : 15. How does
19 1 :30 sound? Is that all right?
20 THE FOREPERSON: Fine.
21 (Witness was excused.)
22
23
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226515
10
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2
3 I, Paula E. Angelocci, Certified Court
4 Reporter and Notary Public, do certify that the
5 transcript is a true and correct transcription of
6 my stenotype notes of the testimony of
7 SPECIAL AGENT taken before
8 the Federal Grand Jury, West Palm Beach, Florida.
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226516
1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
3
4
5
6
7 RE: OPERATION LEAP YEAR
COPY
8
9
10
1 1
12 TESTIMONY
13 OF
14
15
16
17
18 Federal Grand Jury 07-103
Federal Building
19 U.S. Courthouse
West Palm Beach, Florida
20 Tuesday, April 24, 2007
21
22 APPEARANCES:
23 MARIE
Assistan United States Attorney
24
HELENA JOSETTE JONES -PARSONS,
25 Foreperson
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, L'LC
([Phone Redacted]
Exhibit 22
EFTA00226517
2
1 The sworn testimony of was
2 taken before the Federal Grand Jury, West Palm
3 Beach Division, Building, U.S. Courthouse,
4 Palm Beach County, State of Florida, on Tuesday,
5 April 24, 2007.
6 Paula E. Angelocci, Certified Court
7 Reporter and Notary Public, State of Florida,
8 Official Reporting Service, LLC, 524 South Andrews
9 Avenue, Suite 302N, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
10 33301 , was authorized to and did report the sworn
11 testimony.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226518
3
1 (Witness enters the Grand Jury Room.)
2 THE FOREPERSON: You do solemnly swear
3 that the testimony you give will be the
4 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
5 truth, so help you God?
6 THE WITNESS: I do.
7 THE FOREPERSON: Thank you. Please be
8 seated.
9 EXAMINATION
10 BY MS. VILLAFANA:
1 1 Q Good afternoon, Ms. Could you
12 state and spell your name for the record?
13 A H -A -L -E -Y, R -O -B -S-O -N.
14 Q And where do you currently live?
15 A I live -- do you want me to give the
16 address?
17 Q Sure.
18 A 12247 72nd Court North, West Palm Beach,
19 Florida 33412.
20 Q Okay. And you are living with your
21 parents now?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Were you served with a subpoena to
24 appear before the grand jury today?
25 A Yes.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
(9541 467-8204
EFTA00226519
Q And do you understand that an order was
2 signed by a judge compelling you to appear and
3 answer questions?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And that order states that what you tell
6 the grand jury won't be used against unless you
7 perjure yourself?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Do you understand that you are under
10 oath, and you don't tell the truth
1 1 A can go to jail, yes.
12 Q Okay. Let's start with where you went
13 to high school.
14 A Royal Palm Beach High School.
15 Q How old are you today?
16 A Twenty-one.
17 Q And what is your date of birth?
18 A April 9, 1986.
19 Q What year did you graduate from Royal
20 Palm?
21 A 2004.
22 Q And where are you currently working?
23 A I currently am not working.
24 Q But you are starting a new job?
25 A Thursday.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226520
Where will that be?
2 A Fort Lauderdale, Coral Springs.
3 Q What type of position will that be?
4 A Waitressing.
5 Q Have you worked since the time that you
6 graduated from high school?
7 A Uh-huh.
8 Q Can you tell the grand jury what type of
9 jobs you have had?
10 A I worked at T's Lounge as a dancer. I
11 worked in a club up in Orlando as a dancer as
12 well. I have also worked at a sports bar as a
13 waitress.
14 Q When you were in high school, where did
15 you work?
16 A T's Lounge and Olive Garden.
17 Q And do you know Jeffrey Epstein?
18 A Yes, I do.
19 Q Can you tell the grand jury how you
20
f irst came to meet Mr. Epstein?
21 A I met Epstein through two acquaintances,
22 Molly and Tony, and I met them at a beach resort.
23 They made a proposition to me. Later then I
24 picked them up and they gave me directions to the
25 house and that's where I was formerly introduced
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, TAX
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226521
6
1 to Mr. Epstein.
2 Q Okay. And let me just go back over that
3 a little bit. You mentioned that you had two
4 acquaintances, Molly and Tony, and you met them at
5 a beach resort, correct?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And you said that they made a
8 proposition to you. What was that exactly?
9 A Molly had asked me if i wanted to make
10 money and she was working for this guy, Epstein,
11 in Palm Beach. So I told her I was interested and
12 she further went into detail about massaging him,
13 that you would have to take off articles of
14 clothing and there would be touching and fondling
15 involved.
16 Q How old were you when this happened?
17 A About 16.
18 Q And how old was
19 A Same age.
20 Q And how did you know Molly?
21 A We went to middle school together.
22 Q And she was in your same grade in high
23 school?
24 A Yeah.
25 Q And you mentioned that Molly had
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226522
7
previously worked for Epstein or was currently
2 working for Epstein?
3 A Yes, that's right.
4 Q So they explained this proposal to you
5 and you said that you would be interested?
6 A Yes.
7 Q What happened next?
8 A Within a couple of days to a week I
9 picked them up and I went to his house to work for
10 him and I was introduced to , who is his
11 assistant. She took me upstairs to Epstein's
i2 bedroom and that's where the massage took place.
13 was naked and he tried fondling me and
14 I wouldn't have it, so after the massage he gave
15 me another proposition to bring girls to the house
16 and for every girl that I brought I would make
17 $200.
18 Q All right. We'll go back over that a
19 little more slowly. I know this is a lot of
20 information. So let's go back to the proposition
21 that Molly and Tony made tc you.
22 Did they say you would be paid for
23 massaging Mr. Epstein?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And how much would you be paid?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226523
8
A $200.
2 Q Now you said that they had told you that
3 you might have to take your clothing off?
4 A They told me that I was expected to take
5 my clothing off and that there would be fondling.
6 Q Okay. And what -- did they explain
7 what fondling meant?
8 A Just that he'd be touching me.
9 Q Okay. And so you agreed to do that and
10 you went to Mr. Epstein's home?
1 1 A Correct.
12 Q And where was that located?
13 A Palm Beach, Brillo Way.
14 Q B -R -I -L -L -O?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And when you arrived at the home, you
17 said that you were driving with Molly and Tony?
18 A That is correct.
19 Q Tell us how you got into the house.
20 A We went through a gate on the side of
21 the house that led to the back and we just rang
22 the doorbell and answered the door and we
23 were standing in the kitchen and then
24 brought me upstairs.
25 Q Okay. Now did you have any -- did
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226524
9
1 tell you anything about what you would do when you
2 got upstairs?
3 A No, she never discussed that with me.
4 Q Did she say anything to you about taking
5 your clothes off?
6 A No, she never discussed that with me.
7 Q Okay. When you arrived upstairs, ou
8 said that you went into a bedroom?
9 A That is correct.
10 Q What was in the bedroom?
1 1 A It was a bedroom that had a door that
12 led to then I want to say a bigger more than just
13 a bathroom. It was a bigger room with like a
14 pretty large size walk-in closet, a shower, a
15 steam shower, and then two sinks on the right, and
16 in the middle laid the massage table, and then to
17 the left there was two couches.
18 Q And so the massage table was already set
19 up when you arrived?
20 A That is correct.
21 Q Okay. And after led you up to the
22 bedroom, what did she do?
23 A She had left and that's when Epstein
24 came in.
25 Q Okay. And when Mr. Epstein came in,
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226525
10
1 what was he wearing?
2 A He was wearing a towel.
3 Q Okay. And nothing else?
4 A Nothing else.
5 Q And what did he do?
6 A He laid on the table and that's when the
7 massage began and later on he -- when he got in, I
8 took off my clothes and I was just wearing my
9 bottoms, and he later tried to touch me and he
10 grabbed my butt, and that's when I had a problem.
1 1 I told him that I didn't feel comfortable.
12 So later he took the towel off and he
13 was laying on his back and he started to
14 masturbate asking me to squeeze his nipples really
15 hard to ejaculation and then after that everything
16 was done.
17 Q Okay. So when Mr. Epstein ejaculated
18 then the massage or whatever was over?
19 A Yes, it was.
20 Q And once that happened, what did he do?
21 A Just got up and dried himself off and
22 then walked me downstairs.
23 Q And you got dressed as well?
24 A That's right.
25 Q And when you got back downstairs, what
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226526
1 1
1 happened?
2 A I went back into the kitchen and he
3 pulled Tony and Molly aside and then we just left.
4 Of course, I got paid.
5 Q Okay. And tell us where you got paid,
6 who paid you, and how much you received?
7 A Epstein paid me. I received 200, but I
8 cannot recall if it was upstairs that he paid me
9 or if he waited until I got back downstairs.
'0 Q Okay. And when he paid you the $200,
1 1 was it in small bills, large bills?
12 A Big bills, 100s.
13 Q Okay. So two 100 dollar bills. And you
14 said that he pulled Molly and Tony aside. Do you
15 know what that was about?
16 A He would never pay them in Iront of me.
17 He always was funny about that. So I 'm sure it
18 was just paying them for bringing me.
19 Q Okay. And you mentioned that you told
20 Mr. Epstein that you were uncomfortable with him
21 touching you?
22 A That's correct.
23 Q And what became of that?
24 A Later on before I left he had addressed
25 me to not massage him anymore, but asked me if I
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226527
12
could bring girls over and for every girl that
2 brought to the table he would pay me $200.
3 Q Okay. So you weren't comfortable with
4 him touching you, so you weren't going to do any
5 more massages?
6 A No.
7 Q He wanted you to find other girls?
8 A That's correct.
9 Q And he wanted girls that would let him
10 touch them?
1 1 A Uh-huh.
12 Q After that first massage, did you
13 perform any other massages at his house?
14 A Absolutely not.
15 Q Did you bring girls?
16 A That's correct.
17 Q Tell us how you started to bring girls
18 to Mr. Epstein's house.
19 A Just girls that I met in high school,
20 acquaintances, people that I just said hi and bye
21 to. A lot of them actually heard about it through
22 a couple of girls that I brought and they were
23 interested.
24 Some of the girls asked me about it.
25 Just girls in school I'd talk to, just get on the
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226528
13
1 subject. They had no problem with it.
2 Q Okay. So when you found a girl that you
3 thought would be interested, what exactly would
4 you tell her?
5 A I asked them if they were interested in
6 making extra money and that I knew an older
7 wealthier man in Palm Beach who liked to have
8 massages and they would get paid $200.
9 The more they did, the more they make,
10 and I would explain to them in detail what was
11 expected of them when they showed up at the house
12 and I also told them that if they are under age
13 just lie about it and tell him that you are 18.
14 Q Let's talk first about what you said
15 that you tell them what was expected of them.
16 A Yes.
17 Q First of all, why did you tell them
18 that?
19 A Because that's what I was told.
20 Q By whom?
21 A Molly and Tony.
22 Q Okay. And did Jeffrey Epstein ever
23 address you about don't bring girls over here iI
24 they don' t know what's going to happen?
25 A Absolutely.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226529
14
1 Q Okay. So all the girls were supposed to
2 know that when they got there they would be
3 undressing?
4 A They would be undressing. There would
5 be touching. There would be fondling. He was
6 very big on that. He told me never to bring a
7 girl over unless they knew what was expected.
8 Q Okay. And did you also tell them that
9 he would be masturbating?
10 A I didn't really talk to them about that.
11 I didn't know if he did it with everybody or it
12 was just with me that he did that.
13 Q But you told them that they all would
14 have to be partially naked or fully naked?
15 A Partially to fully naked and there would
16 be touching and fondling.
17 Q Okay. How many girls do you think you
18 took to Mr. Epstein's house?
19 A Seven, between seven to ten.
20 Q Okay. And were there any in addition
21 to this rule about the girls had to know what was
22 expected, did Mr. Epstein have any other rules in
23 terms of what the girls looked like or what he
24 liked?
25 A No.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226530
15
1 Q Okay. Were there girls that you brought
2 that he didn't like?
3 A There were a few girls he wasn't crazy
4 about. He didn't really like. He didn't lavor.
5 Rachel, for instance, 23, he thought she was kind
6 of too old.
7 Q Okay. So you brought a girl named
8 Rachel, who was 23 years old?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And you were told that she was too old?
1 1 A Yes.
12 Q Did you ever bring her back?
13 A No.
14 Q What about any other girls that he
15 didn't like?
16 I IIII This other girl went to high school
I
17 with, she was maybe a year younger, and him
18 and her got into an argument about money. I told
19 her in detail what was expected and she, to me,
20 was all for it and then when she got there,
21 decided she didn't want to perform what was
22 necessary. So they got into an argument about
23 money and after that never really brought her
I
24 back.
25 Q Okay. And did either Jeffrey Epstein
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226531
16
1 or say anything to you about what happened
2 with ?
3 A He had made a comment just about -- I
4 had asked he had asked me for someone to come
5 over and work and when I suggested he kind of
6 nodded, not really interested. He told me to find
7 somebody else. So I assumed that meant he really
8 didn't care for her.
9 Q Okay. Now the -- you mentioned Rachel,
10 who was 23. What was the age range of the other
11 girls that you brought to Mr. Epstein's home?
12 A High school, 16 to 18.
13 Q Were there any girls who were younger
14 than that?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Who was that?
17 A
18 Q And how was she?
19 A She was 14.
20 Q Okay. Now you were interviewed by the
21 Palm Beach Police Department?
22 A That's correct.
23 Q And during that interview, you told them
24 that there were two ways to make money with
25 Jeffrey Epstein. Can you explain to the grand
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226532
17
jury what those two ways are?
2 A The more you did is the more you make.
3 Basically, the more clothes that come off, the
4 more you let him touch you, the more you just let
5 him have his way with you is the more that you
6 would make, otherwise, you would be demoted down
7 to bringing girls over and just making money that
8 way.
9 Q And that's what you were doing?
10 A That's correct.
1 1 Q Was bringing girls?
12 A That's correct.
13 Q If you could explain to the grand jury
14 how you would go about making an appointment for a
15 girl to come and give a massage?
16 A His assistant there would call me either
17 before they got into town or while he was in town
18 and either she would ask me for a particular girl,
19 preferably one that he favored, or if I couldn't
20 get a hold of that girl just bring somebody over
21 to work.
22 I would call the girl. She would okay
23 it. I would call back, confirm it, set an
24 appointment, and then the next couple of days we'd
25 go.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226533
18
Q And was the person that you always
2 made the appointment with?
3 A Always.
4 Q Do you remember ever talking to Jeffrey
5 Epstein on the telephone?
6 A Never. The only time I talked to him
7 was physically in person at his house.
8 Q Okay. was really the person that
9 you had to --
10 A Deal with.
11 Q Okay. Now you mentioned that sometimes
12 would request a specific girl?
13 A That's correct.
14 Q Did she give you any reason why he
15 really liked this girl or just is this girl
16 available? What would happen on those calls?
17 A II it was a specific girl, she would
18 call me and just ask: Can this girl work? She
19 would never give me a reason. She would never go
20 into detail. It was just: Can she work, yes or
21 no?
22 Q And was saying to you can she
23 work?
24 A I can't recall if those were her exact
25 words. I can't remember if it was: Can she come
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226534
19
1 over and massage or can she work? I don't recall
2 the exact words.
3 Co Okay. And once you made those
4 appointments then who would normally take you and
5 the girls to the house?
6 A would.
7 Q Okay. And you would drive?
8 A I would drive.
9 Q And were all -- was this always taking
10 place at Mr. Epstein's home?
1 1 A Yes.
12 Q On Brillo Way?
13 A That's correct.
14 Q When you spoke with Kellen on the
15 telephone, did you -- were all 0I these
16 conversations about setting up these appointments?
17 A When I would talk to
18 Q Yes.
19 A Yes. It would be pure business whenever
20
I talked to
21 So you didn't have any sort of friendly
22 relationship?
23 A No friendly relationship, never
24 socialized unless I was at the house. It wasn't
25 like that at all.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226535
20
1 Q Okay. Now when you would bring a new
2 g irl over to the house, what would you do?
3 A Walk up the same way towards the back of
4 the house. They would let us in. I could sit in
5 the kitchen with the girl. I would either wait
6 for to come in or Jeffrey. Most of the time
7 it was
8 would bring the girl upstairs
9 while I waited downstairs. After the massage, the
10 girl would come downstairs. I would get paid and
11 then we would leave.
12 Q Tell us how you would get paid when you
13 were the person who brought the girls.
14 A What do you mean how I would get paid?
15 Q Who would pay you?
16 A Jeffrey Epstein would pull me aside
17 whether it be in his, I guess, living room slash
18 o ffice. He would just make sure that when he paid
19 me, it was just me and him, nobody else was
20 around.
21 Q And how much would you get paid for each
22 g irl?
23 A $200.
24 Q And again with the two 100 dollar bills?
25 A Always 10.0 dollar bills.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226536
21
Q Did you ever see the girl who actually
2 did the massages get paid?
3 A No, I never saw them get paid. He never
4 paid us in front of each other.
5 Q Okay. Did the girls ever tell you that
6 they did get paid or how much they got paid?
7 A Most of the time.
8 Q Okay. And how much money would each
9 girl get paid?
10 A It ranges.
1 1 Q From?
12 A It ranges from 200 to some got paid 300.
13 Like I said, the more you do, the more you make.
14 There were a couple of girls that got paid 300,
15 400, and then there were a couple of girls that
16 got paid 200 maybe even 100.
17 Q Now you mentioned that usually
18 would take the girl upstairs?
19 A That's correct.
20 Q Were there ever instances where you took
21 the girl upstairs?
22 A Very rarely. I think it happened once
23 or twice where was doing something or she
2.4 would need me to go upstairs and set up. I would
25 just go upstairs. I would show her where the
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226537
22
1 massage table was.
2 I would set it up for them. I would
3 show them where the towels were, put the towels on
4 the massage table and then I would tell them
5 Jeffrey would be in, in a minute and then I would
6 walk back downstairs and wait in the kitchen.
7 Q Okay. And when you were in these other
8 instances where you led the girl upstairs, besides
9 the massage table, did you ever see any other
10 implements that were used during the massage?
1 1 A I think there were maybe a few occasions
12 where I would walk upstairs to show the girl or
13 maybe it was even when I first massaged him, there
14 was like a white massager on the table or a white
15 vibrator.
16 Q And can you describe that to the grand
17 jury?
18 A What it looked like?
19 Q What it looked like, yes.
20 A It was like a cylinder. It was really
21 big. The head was bigger. It was white. I think
22 the top of it was maybe like pink. It was big,
23 that's all I remember.
24 Okay. And did any of the girls ever
25 tell you that that was used on them?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226538
23
1 A Yes.
2 Q Okay. Now I 'm going to run through the
3 names of some girls that you brought just to
4 confirm with the grand jury that you brought them.
5 A Okay.
6 Q Pentek?
7 A That's correct.
8 IIIIIIIIIIIIk?
9 A Correct.
10 Gonzales?
11 A Correct.
12 Q r Siciliano?
13 A Yes.
14 Jennifer
15 A Yes.
16 Q Yolando
17 A Yes.
18 Q And then there is another girl, Serina
19 Figeroa?
20 A Serina never, ever, ever worked for
21 Jeffrey. She accompanied me to his house I think
22 once or twice and waited in the kitchen with me,
23 but she never worked for him.
24 Q Okay. But she was somebody that you
25 brought along with you?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226539
24
1 A That is correct.
2 Q On visits?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Okay In addition to those girls
5 that who I just named, you mentioned a woman,
6 Rachel, who is 23?
7 A Uh-huh.
8 Q Were there any other girls that you
9 recall bringing to Jeffrey Epstein's house?
10 A I cannot recall bringing anybody else.
11 Q Okay. Now one of those girls that we
12 mentioned was Zalis, correct?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And you told the police that Jeffrey
15 liked the best?
16 A Yes.
17 Q How old was
18 A She was around the same age as me, maybe
19 a grade lower than me.
20 Q Okay. So she was under age?
21 A Yes, correct.
22 Q And all of those girls who names I read
23 were under age when you brought them there?
24 A Except for Rachel.
25 Q Okay. What did look like?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226540
25
1 A was Hispanic. She kind of looks
2 Korean, but she's Hispanic, Hawaiian, maybe. She
3 had a dark complexion. She had hair down to the
4 middle of her back, long, highlights.
5 Q Was she thin or heavy?
6 A No. She was maybe -- she had a boxy
7 type figure, maybe a little lighter than me.
8 Q And how tall do you think she was?
9 A About 5'S, 5'6.
10 Q Okay. And you knew that Jeffrey liked
1 1 because he would specifically request her?
12 A There was a few occasions that he would
13 specifically ask for her, correct.
14 Q Okay. And you mentioned that some of
15 the girls told you about the massager being used,
16 correct?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Did some of girls tell you what happened
19 inside of that bedroom?
20 A A few of them did.
21 Q Let's talk first about ■ _no.
22 A Okay.
23 Q Did she tell you what happened?
24 A All that she really told me was that
25 they got into a money fight. He had tried
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226541
26
1 fondling her. She wasn't having it, and then she
2 only got paid $100 and she Ielt like she was being
3 ripped off.
4 Q Okay. What about Gonzales, did
she tell you about what happened?
6 A Yes.
7 Q What did she explain to you?
a A Saige, on the way home, had told me she
9 got paid $300, and basically let him insert
10
lingers in her and use the massager on her.
1 1 Q Okay. And she told you those things?
12 A She told me those things.
13 Q That he had digitally penetrated her and
14 had used the massager?
15 A That's correct.
16 Q Okay. And that was -- when did she tell
17 you that?
18 A Right when we got outside into the
19 truck.
20 Q As you were driving away?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q Do you remember which other girls told
23 you about the massager being used?
24 A I can't recall. know there was
25 another one that said something about the
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226542
27
1 massager, but I wasn't really paying attention.
2 Q Now when you first went and gave Mr.
3 Epstein the massage, did he ask for your telephone
4 number after you were finished?
5 A No, did.
6 Q did. And she took down your
7 telephone number?
8 A She took down my name and my telephone
9 number.
10 Q After that, how was all contact made
1 1 with you?
12 A
13 Q Directly to you?
14 A Directly toward me.
15 Q Okay. So were there any more instances
16 where she went either through Molly or Tony to
17 reach you?
18 A Absolutely not.
19 Q Okay. Now when you brought girls over
20 was it the same thing where they would ask for the
21 girl's name and number?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And when that happened, would they
24 continue to go through you to set up appointments?
25 A Most of time they went through me.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226543
28
1 Actually 99.9 percent of the time they went
2 through me. On a few occasions, the girls that
3 they liked the best, or instance, Vanessa, after
4 a while me and stopped contact with each
5 other and Jeffrey just went strictly through her.
6 Q Okay. And when an appointment was made
7 directly with the girl, you wouldn't necessarily
8 know about it?
9 A I would not necessarily know about it
10 • And when the appointment was made
1 1 directly with the girl then you wouldn't get paid,
12 correct?
13 A Correct.
14 Q Did you hear or do you know whether some
15 girls that you brought, brought more girls?
16 A Yeah, I'm sure of it.
17 Q Okay. When did you first meet
18 Kellen? Was it that day that you went to give the
19 massage?
20 A That's correct.
21 Q And how did you first meet her?
22 A Just walking in the kitchen and waiting
23 for somebody whether it be Epstein or
24 came and introduced herself as and I
25 learned that she was Epstein's assistant.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226544
29
1 Q And you said that she was the one who
2 took you upstairs on the first day?
3 A That's correct.
4 Q And we were talking earlier about how
5 appointments would be made for you to bring
6 additional girls, correct?
7 A Yes.
8 Q How far in advance would call you
9 to make appointments?
10 A :t depends. Sometimes she would call me
1 1 a I ew days in advance. Jeffrey is going to be in
12 town tomorrow or this weekend, have a couple of
13 girls lined up or have a girl lined up. So it
14 would be anywhere between a couple of days to a
15 weekend.
16 Q Okay. Did you ever talk with or
17 did ever tell you anything about what
18 Jeffrey liked to do with the girls?
19 A Absolutely not. We never discussed
20 that.
21 Q Did you ever talk with her about a rumor
22 that you had heard that a girl had intercourse
23 with Jeffrey?
24 A One day I was talking on the phone with
25 and I addressed her with it, asking her
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226545
30
1 about a rumor I heard of a girl sleeping with
2 Jeffrey, having intercourse, and making $1 ,000,
3 and she denied it and said that he doesn't do that
4 kind of thing, he just plays with them.
5 Q Okay. So she said that he didn't have
6 intercourse, he just liked to play with the girls?
7 A That's correct.
8 Q And when you spoke with the police, you
9 said that Jeffrey liked to masturbate in front of
10 the girls but not have sex?
1 1 A That's correct.
12 Q what led you to believe that?
13 A He just did it. I just learned that
14 Epstein just started masturbating in front of
15 everybody. It was like the new thing for him, and
16 it just started happening and more and more girls
17 were making comments.
18 So did know that he was
19 masturbating in frcnt of the girls?
A Not that I know of. I didn't say
21 anything and I don't think she had an idea. I
22 think she knew there was playing going on. I
23 don't think she knew of what sort.
24 Okay. So she knew that something sexual
25 was going on, but not necessarily what that
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226546
31
1 entailed?
2 A Correct.
3 Q Okay. Did Jeffrey or or anyone
4 else who worked for Mr. Epstein ever ask you for
5 proof of someone's age?
6 A Never.
7 Q Did they ever specifically instruct you
8 that you shouldn't bring girls who were under age
9 to the house?
10 A Never.
Q And when you spoke with the police
12 department you said that at some point Jeffrey
13 said the younger the better?
14 A That's correct.
15 Q And even after that he never said to you
16 but make sure that they are over 18?
17 A We never discussed age. He never made a
18 comment about age except for Rachel that one time
19 about her being too old. He never told me to go
20
find under aged girls, but at the same time never
21 said make sure they are over 18. It was never
22 discussed.
23 Q Okay. All right.
24 MS. III going to ask you to
25 step outside for a minute and I will find out
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226547
32
1 if the grand jury has questions. Thank you
2 very much.
3 (Witness exits the Grand Jury Room.)
4 * * *
5 (Witness enters the Grand Jury Room.)
6 BY MS.
7 Q Ms. I have to remind you that
8 you are still under oath. There were just two
9 follow-up questions. The first one is something
10 that I think you spoke about earlier, but who
1 1 first asked you to find other girls?
12 A Who first asked me to first other girls?
13 Q Yes.
14 A That would be Epstein.
15 Q Okay. So Jeffrey asked you himself,
16 Jeffrey Epstein himself asked you?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Okay. And then the other question was:
19 Are you currently in contact with anyone who works
20 for Mr. Epstein or himself?
21 A I don't talk to any of the lemales that
22 I once brought over there. I haven't been in
23 contact with Epstein for years. He tried
24 contacting me a few times.
25 I haven't contacted him back. I refuse
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226548
33
1 to talk to him. I refuse to talk to any of the
2 girls that were involved. However, I did live
3 with one of the girls in Orlando for a couple
4 months to a year. I haven't spoken to her in over
5 a year either.
6 • Okay. So after -- and just so the grand
7 jury has a sense here, we are talking about the
8 2004 to 2005 period is when you were bringing
9 girls over?
10 A That's correct.
1 1 Q So since then --
12 A I don't -- to be honest with you, I
13 think it was more 2003, 2004.
14 Q Okay.
15 A My junior senior year.
16 Q Okay. But anyhow it was a couple of
17 years ago?
18 A Several years ago.
19 • Okay.
20 MS. Is there any Iollow up
21 on either of those points? Yes, ma'am.
22 A GRAND JUROR: Was it Jeffrey Epstein
23 h imself trying to contact you or
24 THE WITNESS: I don't know if it was him
25 directly. I know that his number showed up
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226549
3e
on my house phone. I 'm assuming because
2 Sarah was there, I'm assuming that she is the
3 one that has been trying to contact me in the
4 past years. Epstein never talked directly to
5 me on the phone.
6 MS. Any other follow up?
7 Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you for
8 coming.
9 (Witness was excused.)
10
1 1
12
13
14 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
15
16 I, Paula E. Angelocci, Certified Court
17 Reporter and Notary Public, do certify that the
18 transcript is a true and correct transcription of
19 my stenotype notes of the testimony of
20 taken before the Federal Grand Jury,
21 West Palm Beach, Florida.
22
AULA E. ANGE CCI, CSR #4869
23 Cert ified Court Reporter
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226550
035
2-9O1 etoerfreat-
tyinsiocethicT
A
OsetS Ey T
a0ClarAtet6.14
fitiektel nF •tuadjAnti
Thar IS OWSU-q_
U4ct se__ER-artinve - Lorr-
-ctiAxr_:-Set2car
-)RAfr pulvence.r. n+eme Alec
ihs5mta visa bulk erw-, tau Olks
Vow was) afar any SAN art /4,/f
GAM6l4EC_ACC_____
--Sat- _wail Scricg i g
ivs-waciuS / Am
C.10044 Jam_ GC 14€ i lom-)
1cts.64c14-Wie- Cmg.se Plesc
TS-) diner-40: -eAcm Onfecreilabei
71-Cle{ tizsith
ETA r __Sr co
Au. },Sr-c/ Araf3 ..s..r4Sonl_eildilebk
•
Non
__Spat gnannr_7 Wino&
oc _AZIONIZUM W _
nothnobi Otogenosticieleit
frget 5//no/n& CAusa :Thar Tssua
-Cs& 34, asr to1/41eis _Sion* Mends+
14W6}5&ilAtEgq- Beirrifrawebilesectsa
lgoscaosits -
Ilikthfr Sett-NAS thavir ASZEN IS SiA4ft 7
An) Ws, gAure_yzi. ticcemp RezreASE
fleAsE no-die-f4ARRA P-008543
Exhibit 23
EFTA00226551
Mes, I wu. &La- 5/A 4peEtabikU- -m -ra-nry
atr 7-Loo ADDITIon)Ai_. kweRviems- &Ymer&
Pizezees 7NE Mcez6e CrieermeL •
eet-teib tAS cF Vaux- Aime AND mn) Wom
7/51A. tee ,emeLor •
sew cne ce -rite- OkSe AceMIS Assica.let Tb
centa) Lee) \MAR?
DID \PA fe le•fi @et./ ingeemezA.)
ferkt-t M ? "-UV° g?
LA>10 -r-e.e57? is sscrsovr.' 08)
14- Wriev LYD youL. thrfeRtne.A) /tg 7
Pte,' Da) MS • MiLuee.. ;pige It≥ 72/e.. Aličinnonf oc
Wr-oeceree
• tata, u•dt
Dib FAUX *O9tCrEl Pb 79 Tb it•JTbXV/eLV
4414-
/mer evesbuel) .7n
-:AÉ/OZ r6/ tčcoete iNvotaiez, bib Vat 77Z,S
eireevickv MIL-LaZ? &utile weraveD
. -My rD leve tek bwrE A stetem4-
. criMir or nes cen (.1ty.)
. Lyse tint
-17-Arite nee, µs. cerre, Alo Arneni?
Lalo L‘yts en?
reqb Wer ernieeey?
avete Si-fr te° AN 'enlevai/ bt& M. Mit..te-X
1. heurt - 7D te: //vreainerveb Mai MW?
l
EbD Ileč6Anct be»erge» ARTI-ArierZE
J. &Fies cÉ /mmuivirui?
u..kts s•tie- gaieté)] 60,10 was FREIVUI- 2
-1;Lettikr bit J1C em__Aecew- eirray 0°Su?
- - bipw va) Dit, Sée sh-v se -ma bak)fo siKr pet
Mer /Ma
Sei(
npistrsee_eteAdie te-MeaVare
EFTA00226552
WHAT bib ,.5116 7ZU yak. iA comfar cco../xxiz
buigiN4 i-LASGerett-S?
-7cft-eas
inbIZ
He MASnAkertr731)
- 40CM!) nMC gelt2F0cme MiNzasss
5A iN NO TO INCA - 0 .1944T7C P1301A77;46
AS - pp k
4 34,94 1)(.7u2i..5 y IPCS stire-
- 0V THE omrs Oeivnrief), day MA in.k.4 izAteetele-
•- -1-1Av6 Avy_cF- rani eAce s fetotgr
fraiss 77Pe- TP46-?
bfaw WoastrMENts A4A2E.?
MIS axAN) c.cAckft-D?
uficin.mpite A(~e2E 'MAT
CaANSV1- s /AiKcif.MEL -Mar AC- LA.As
&dm /Nutsnalireb r62 TPWASZ/A/c1 lb eiv6.46E
rN f34fls7)1l27ON Liji7H- A MiA/674,40,10, gic7663:15
MAIVAlo APR:WOW-AO PKia. 71) TNf 7X,Ii42.7
-7Avriuv4 &se 7-i147- sunzol Ceiktist)
-I!bp Ms. 144-1-6( PC-SCAlee VC WAS 7NA-r.Shr
2..twaolr ova c
GIALs && 10 Loy< LA/et— Mg.
Ersie?Ai Lan hie Ls bum, (..ocKeziuxe- rk-R?
ou) (,cyti Mg -Aku-oe. pr Tit- Time-
6 SiiC MEN77crub-D FIAT vie- bt)As -rya
witc /8 ovvo 77#47 MD 4 FAKE-
-AD Ms. Pia-4...CA 70-L. *Lc 7}/47- Cosi-c,„_)
Ifei-Lent Ac.K 1 1/92 AtiC?ASKeb
To Arty ItenmpicAno,..,
Ann/ Gras NE bray '7 UNE?
carry Nor
slit- 44-0 - A MrSTME-.
- lie 5774-i- PAO THC-
GaLti-tio IT L£T 146-g Db714£ Main
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-008545
EFTA00226553
Ld>vvniiive
-th Peenntv,-) Fez 7C1-7-nuarui 7U)A iws
slew bwrei E WHO/5"/ CtrySinEn
70 ec- AN afeeZT /AI Tliese %yPas cr
• CASES?
rr To Tanni
eaftl &us-Fie -be/1S AN &Peer flu
rJrjeleri. hue Snire Caws /iv owes niAr kiiteue
• GurtAT HE CA C.(S reel/air vicrieuç
. balm ece...s He Cee-iruiler Vows.
„/Aloojez (A.)aetts, mfrvar-S mye ARC.- attwatà
„ .SEXUAL Acnveny, au - talc ht Ale
. ce Reita Ar Cumper 0X Seieeel
Der Me4-7 7
„ Dneercucnes
ikhe - e.'21'. b•4-• APE age IVORY IneVeliewme
Iliac 71,11C3 of" Vicrims?
-tEeiv
-m,p(miee
- aNw ea_ eveynieia MAT tizietei5vea
Apex le-veceem4 »aver own-,
er si viauet
s 7-52->r vole/ byRxvienàs /Al OILS
CASC?
;boes it- A Leo 4t: apterse J/4mzett-
, woute An) CFrelvbf.4 SaeCT 771C
. vic.17ms -ner eve /Mize /Ai 7I//S Ye .
RL.
CC,I fié -17 WiteS• ()Lb ?_,)
4
weAnu-te
u
- SF-)cu./4t eseeenpve, EL
- Efrisl 7b MAMPut_ArC
( tA4Dcei,riuti ttFert.
War r,5 6RoOMiNei dua)
I lb [Email Redacted] P-008546
EFTA00226554
45teggits
n' o Ent-0N use Gtoommic) oN nic GAS
luvow cz wsi THIS
- CM' le- ifwe- Expvman ?
ibm µR Z.ANA-Mici Exasov wily T /s 1HAT 7PC
, -4.4es-fMcfrifeEtttra--ePa_
I A C.onwt--/AAIT GH/Lb Vain WAT LaAal
. CCA6fax W 1-ie- Włokus-7 .
/A1S-ML4crion.) S
buDicrmENT
INTRoDtacTior-)
-Se-
- AI
- m
- JeC., G
yPER/ oi•-1
oF E.4.4oeNce..- In.) 746 CASE-
-Iwo prom /159n
...SEAKCE OF IS EOME-
. -1/vAAVt6wS fan
Cal TIRQUeb (14-4-5
- Inn clArtiocet by f& I
-INMAVIEWS 61tiLS, jfecgoaVcS
PriONC k.00 0
,0 S
Ritn e-65 P/M,44043/6/Frś
- liesrvez- 4.. atri eS Aderwr /-tmolpiays
- °WM bonn." gotar-E, - CoepotArt tauilaSS
--IINAUj 2.G DATĄ fitj1R3F Hr")
-CALLS r Ecin es
Alg** faeOrAla %ki5t4/ 11266§5 47
EFTA00226555
,— --
Is -rtie iNvesticiA710^-1 (won ts.)u.thlca _ _
Tea(!IQ e4 ro Lac.orre" ANO ihrrestiltoJ mom__
eutt-57
27-Csal ID 7146 SettiAcaviDeAlCaSfliatrlisa
lit -O Sgt .ACTSr liana 70_ %Sikh/ea_ hoes .2112,5_ _
- -AND crAsAiSfa
At 145 Aatir " Weir
nc / - 1411-0/
you rE6r/r/a) attua- AeoL.L.r
ravnets tertee viis cen .2teRy
DO8
SSE Dcalteig1)Liktu 946.ae-RLtie_ TD fEittittfrt_.
.61" 2 inzr-c—ScaS
4-vtati5C-11-t-
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-008548
EFTA00226556
EFTA00226557
Page "I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
IN RE: OPERATION LEAP YEAR
Federal Grand Jury, 07-103
West Palm Beach, Florida
May 8, 2007
APPEARANCES:
ESQUIRE
Assistant United States Attorney
, Foreperson
TESTIMONY
OF
Exhibit 24
EFTA00226558
Pag
1 The sworn testimony ofIIIIIIIIIIII
2 was taken before the Federal Grand Jury, West Palm
3 Beach Division, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
4 State of Florida, on the 8th day of May, 2007.
5 Philip W. May, Court Reporter, was authorized to
6 and did report the sworn testimony.
7
14
15
:6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA00226559
Page 3
1 (The witness entered the grand jury room.)
2
3 having been duly sworn by the grand jury foreperson,
4 was examined and testified on her oath as follows:
5 EXAMINATION
6 BY MS.
Q Could you start by reminding us of your name and
8 where you're employed.
9 A
10 I work for the FBI here in West
11 Palm Beach on their violent crimes squad.
12 Q And you are one of the case agents in Operation
13 Leap Year?
14 A Yes, I am.
15 Q Did you recently participate in an interview of
16
17 A Yes.
18 • Can you tell us s date of birth?
19 A Tatum was born on July 26, 1988.
20 And you spoke with her recently?
21 A Yes, we did.
22 Q So she was 18 at the time of the interview?
23 Yes, I believe she was.
24 Who is Tatum Miller?
25 A was identified by the Palm Beach
EFTA00226560
Page 4
1 Police Department as one of the girls who had frequented
2 Mr. Epstein's house.
3 Q How exactly did the Palm Beach Police Department
4 determine that she was one of those girls?
A When they did their search warrant at
6 Mr. Epstein's residence, some message pads were obtained
7 at his residence, and they had several calls from a girl
8 named Tatum, and phone numbers. So they were able to
9 track back those messages back to
10 Q Did the Palm Beach Police Department try to
11 interview Miss
12 A They did.
13 Q Did she agree to speak with them?
14 A No. She stated that she loved Jeffrey Epstein,
15 and that she would not say anything positive or negative
76 about what occurred.
17 Q After the FBI became involved in this
8 investigation, did you try to interview
19 A We did, as well, with no such luck, as well.
J0 Q How long ago was it that you first made contact
21 with Miss Miller?
22 A It was back in November of '06.
23 Q Did you try to serve her with a subpoena issued
24 on behalf of this grand jury?
25 A Yes, we did.
EFTA00226561
Page 5
1 Q What happened?
2 A She refused service of the grand jury subpoena.
3 But she was notified of when her appearance was expected
4 here, and a subpoena was left with her.
5 Q After that, did she obtain an attorney?
6 A Yes, she did.
Q Who was that?
8 A Jim Eisenberg. He's a well-known defense
9 attorney here in West Palm Beach.
10 Q Who paid for that attorney?
11 A Mr. Epstein is paying for attorney.
12 Q Now once Miss secured the attorney, did
13 she agree to be interviewed?
14 A Yes, she did, after she was granted 6001
15 immunity. She requested immunity.
16 Q Did the justice department authorize that grant
17 of immunity?
18 A Yes, they did.
19 Q After that, did she agree to be interviewed?
20 A Yeah. It was only after she was given that
21 immunity that she would talk with us.
22 Q When did the interview take place?
23 A It took place at the end of April of this year,
24 so just a few weeks ago.
25 Q Who was present at that interview?
EFTA00226562
Page 6
1 A Myself; my partner, agent Richards; the AUSA,
2 ; her attorney, Jim Eisenberg, and his
3 investigator; as well as
4 Q What did Miss tell you about Jeffrey
5 Epstein?
6 A She stated that she had met an individual by the
7 name of Caroline at a party who had asked her if she
8 wanted to make a few bucks by giving a man a massage. She
9 was told that Mr. Epstein preferred them to be topless,
10 and she agreed to go to his house to give him a massage.
11 Q How old did Miss MI tell you she was at that
12 time?
13 A She stated she was 16 when she first started
14 giving Mr. Epstein massages.
15 Q Based upon your review of the evidence, is that
16 correct?
17 A No. We have phone records where Sara Kellin
18 (phonetic), Mr. Epstein's assistant, is contacting
19 on her cell phone, or using her cell phone to call Tatum's
20 cell phone starting in April of 2004, which makes
21 15.
22 Q So she said that she was 16, but your evidence
23 shows that she was 15, and she said that she was told she
24 could make a few bucks giving a topless massage?
25 A Yes.
EFTA00226563
Page 7
1 Q What else did Miss tell you?
2 A That she went to Mr. Epstein's residence, that
3 Caroline took her there the first time, that when she went
4 upstairs she was paid $200 when she first got there by
S Sara Kellin. Then she goes upstairs, and Mr. Epstein
6 comes in, he disrobes, puts on a towel, lays down on the
7 massage table and she begins to massage him.
8 She tells Epstein that she heard he likes
9 topless massages, and he told her that he did. And she
10 said, "Who wouldn't?" And she ended up taking of her top
11 during the first massage. But is clear that Mr.
12 Epstein did not at any point touch her during the massage.
13 Q But does she admit that he touched himself?
14 A Yes. On the second massage, Mr. Epstein asked
15 her to leave her phone number with Sara. Her phone number
16 was left there. On the second massage, she returned the
17 very next day and gave him another massage. This time,
18 Mr. Epstein masturbated in Iront of her.
19 Q Did Miss Miller admit that he masturbated on
Z0 more than one occasion in her presence?
21 A Yes, masturbated. And I think her term was that
22 he "released," meaning that he ejaculated.
73 Q How long of a period of time did Miss
24 tell you that she performed massages?
25 A She wasn't able to give us a number of massages,
EFTA00226564
Page 8
1 but just said that it was a lot, and that she had been
2 giving him massages lor a year.
3 Q You mentioned to the grand jury that Miss
4 said that Mr. Epstein never touched her, correct?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And she was very adamant about that?
7 A Yes, she was.
8 Q Were there other things that she was adamant
9 about in her interview with you?
10 A well, she talked about what she would tell the
11 girls that -- and that she told Mr. Epstein that she was
12 18. I'm sorry, I take that back. She was told to say
13 that she was 18, and she told us that she had a fake I.D.
14 showing that she was 18.
15 So she passed that information along to the
16 other girls when she brought -- eventually she brought
17 other girls to perform massages, and that was one of the
18 things that she told -- she told us first that she brought
19 18- to 20-year old girls. And then she stated that if the
20 girls lied, and they were underage, she told them that
21 they needed to tell Epstein that they were 18.
22 Q Have you been able to identify some of the girls
23 that Miss brought to Mr. Epstein's home?
24 A Yes.
25 • Were any of those girls over 18?
EFTA00226565
Page 9
1 A No, not that we found so far.
2 Q Have any of the girls told investigators about
3 what Mr. Epstein knew about their ages?
4 A I'm sorry, say that again.
5 Q Have any of the girls who came through Tatum
6 been interviewed about what Mr. Epstein knew about
7 their ages?
8 A We did interview them regarding that, and I'm
9 not sure if he asked them. They were all told to say they
10 were 18, but not on every occasion would Mr. Epstein
11 inquire about their age.
12 Q Do you want to check your records on that?
13 A Yes, could I do that?
14 Q Yes, please do.
15 A I can tell you that one of the girls that she
16 brought -- this girl told Mr. Epstein that she was in high
17 school, and actually told him her true age, which was
18 under 18.
19 Q So what told you about, that wasn't
20 really the case?
21 A No, that wasn't. Sorry.
22 Q That's all right, I just wanted to make sure
23 it's clear.
24 So Miss told you that she had been told
25 to say she was 18, and she also told you that she had a
EFTA00226566
Page 10
1 fake I.D.?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Did she ever say that Mr. Epstein either asked
4 for her age or asked to see her I.D.?
5 A No, the topic never came up.
6 Q Did you also ask her about how appointments were
7 made?
8 A Yes. She was very clear in the fact that Sara
9 Kellin would call her to arrange the appointments, but
10 that Sara Kellin would call her once Jeffrey was in town.
11 Q So she was adamant that the calls only happened
12 when she was already here?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Were you made aware that Epstein's counsel was
15 informed that he was being investigated for traveling to
16 engage in prostitution, which means that the appointments
17 would have been made before the traveling?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Was there anything else, besides the issue of
20 age and the issue of when the appointments were made, that
21 sounded coached or that she was especially adamant about?
22 A No, I wouldn't say coached. I mean, we talked
23 about the preferences that Jeffrey discussed, as far as
24 which girls he would like to bring.
25 Once started giving massages to Epstein,
EFTA00226567
Page 11
told us that he liked different faces, so he would
2 ask her to bring other girls. We asked her if he ever
3 gave any preferences of what he preferred, and her
4 response was that Epstein liked girls like her, which is
5 thin and blond and attractive.
6 Q And how old was she at the time?
7 A She was 15.
8 Q So thin, blonde, attractive and --
9 A Young, girls like her. I guess we asked if she
10 ever made a mistake, or ever brought somebody that Mr.
11 Epstein didn't take to. She said that she had screwed up
12 and that she had brought a black girl to Mr. Epstein, and
13 that Epstein was not interested in black girls. But he
14 did pay her, and said that he wasn't a racist. He paid
15 her the S200 for her time, but did not want her to perform
16 a massage for him.
17 Q And he didn't allow that girl to perform a
18 massage?
19 A No.
20 Q was there anything else that Miss Miller talked
21 about in the interview that you want to share with the
22 grand jury?
23 A I did ask her at the end of the interview if she
24 was in love with Mr. Epstein. She looked into the camera
25 and said that she loved him like a friend. But then she
EFTA00226568
Page 12
1 kind of looked into the camera and gave a wink and a smile
2 and said, "But with your money, I'd marry you any time,
3 Jeffrey."
4 Q Did she also say that she considered him to be
an "awesome guy"?
6 A Several times she referred to him as an "awesome
7 guy". She said that the girls begged her to come and that
8 the girls didn't have a complaint, and the girls would
9 share with her everything that happened after the massage,
10 and that Jeffrey never touched any of the girls. But as I
11 informed you, we did interview some of the girls that she
12 took, and he has touched them.
13 Q In preparation for your testimony today, did you
14 also speak with someone who is considered to be an expert
15 in these cases?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And what is that person's name?
18 A Ken Lanning.
19 Q Has Mr. Lanning been qualified to testify as an
20 expert in federal and state courts in cases that involve
21 what he calls "compliant victims"?
22 A Yes.
23 Q What does he mean by the term "compliant
24 victims"?
25 A A compliant victim is when a victim is not
EFTA00226569
Page 13
1 necessarily forced into the conduct that the offender
2 wants them to engage into, that they actually consent to
3 that kind of activity.
4 Q So that would include minors who are subjected
5 to sexual activity but weren't necessarily kidnapped or
6 forced at gunpoint, or something like that?
7 A Exactly.
8 Q Did he discuss with you the difficulties that
9 exist when you interview those types of victims?
10 A Yes. He stated that a compliant victim is often
11 times embarrassed that they went along with the behavior.
12 They are also likely to deny the behavior, especially when
13 being interviewed by investigators, that they'll deny it
14 or they'll minimize it. Sometimes it takes two, three or
15 multiple interviews to get compliant victims to either
16 trust their interviewer or realize that their interviewer
17 is not going to be judgemental.
18 Q In this case, have you found that to be the case
19 with some of the interviews?
20 A Yes, I have.
21 Q In addition to being embarrassed, sometimes
22 these victims feel guilty about the fact that they were
23 involved in this type of activity?
24 A Oh, yes.
25 Q Does Mr. Lanning also have expertise in sexual
EFTA00226570
Page 14
1 preference of offenders?
2 A Yes, he does.
3 Q Did he explain why an offender would select the
4 types of victims that are involved in this case, girls
5 between 14 and 17-years-old?
6 A This type of offender, the sexual preference he
7 has is for post-pubescent females that are physically
8 developed but not necessarily mentally matured. The girls
9 ranging in this age are sometimes inexperienced, they are
10 possibly naive, not as worldly.
11 An offender of this type could also maybe not
12 feel sexually adequate or feel competent dealing with his
13 own age group. So knowing that these girls are less
14 experienced, may focus on them as well.
15 Q In addition to their emotional immaturity, did
16 Mr. Lanning talk about whether or not younger girls are
17 easier to manipulate than grown women?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Did he talk to you about "grooming"?
20 A Yeah. That's what an offender will use with a
21 compliant victim. He told us that grooming is a technique
22 where you gain the cooperation of those victims by
23 focusing on their interests and playing up to those
24 interests. It's a type of seduction, he called it. That
25 was his words for it. And we actually see this in this
EFTA00226571
Page 15
case.
2 Q Can you give us an example of some of the types
3 of grooming that Mr. Epstein used?
4 A With one of the girls we're going to talk about
S today, P., it's very apparent interviewing her how
6 Epstein groomed her. She only went to three or lour
7 massages at this time, that she's admitted to. We feel
8 that due to her phone conversations, the multiple calls,
9 that there may be more there. At this point she has
10 stated to us that she has performed three or four massages
11 for Mr. Epstein.
12 What he did is when she first went there he
13 played upon -- she was very shy, and he would play upon
14 that shyness. He told her that she was pretty. He asked
15 her to remove her clothing, and she would not. So he kind
16 of kidded around with her shyness and complimented her,
17 showed interest in her, talked about her boyfriend and
18 different interests she had.
19 At the end of that interview, because she did
20 not take off her clothes, he tells her that if she's
21 willing to do more, she will make more. He also tells her
22 that he would pay her if she would bring other girls. As
23 the massages increased, you can see that the next time she
24 comes he plays again to that shyness, but he gets a little
25 bit more -- I guess he sees that it's not working
. This
EFTA00226572
Page 16
1 time she does comply and takes off her -- he asked her to
2 disrobe on the second massage. She takes off her blouse,
3 but she refuses to take off the bra after Mr. Epstein
4 asked her to.
5 So you can see that he tries through showing
6 interest. And then he actually -- when he sees that this
7 isn't working, he takes a more authoritative role with her
8 in the last massage. She said that throughout all of
9 these massages he was very nice, and then at the end he
10 was much more frustrated and irritated. She does get down
11 to her bra and panties on that one, he's just much
12 more authoritative.
13 So he started with the grooming process, tried
14 to get her interest, tried to use that to get her to
15 comply with removing her clothes. But as often happens,
16 at the end of this, he took over and was much more
:7 forceful with his requests.
18 Q Have other girls described that same situation
19 where every time they went back, he tried to push it one
20 step further and one step further?
21 A Yes. Several of the girls have said that he
22 would always push for more and more.
23 Q Did Mr. Lanning explain why it is that a
24 compliant child victim cannot legally consent to the
25 sexual conduct?
EFTA00226573
Page 17
1 A Yeah. He stated that -- you know, we talked
2 about how the law protects children, and stated that we
3 hold adults accountable. When it comes to adolescents,
4 they go through normal tendencies that mature offenders
5 may try to take advantage of. But the law is in place lor
6 that reason, to protect -- in the federal law, to protect
7 those individuals under the age of 18.
8 • And that's because of the different maturity
9 levels of the --
10 A The offender versus the victims, exactly.
11 Q Did you put together the photographs of the
12 defendants in this case?
13 A Yes, I did.
14 Q Are these photographs of the four human
15 defendants who are named in the proposed indictment?
16 A Yes.
17 • With their names underneath them?
18 A Yes.
19 • Agent, who is in the top left-hand corner?
20 A That's Jeffrey Epstein.
21 Q When was this photograph taken?
22 A Recently. There was an article that just came
23 out regarding Mr. Epstein and his connection, or his
24 personal relationship with Prince Andrew, and that was a
25 picture that was in that article.
EFTA00226574
Page 18
1 Q Who is in the to ri ht-hand corner?
2 A That's
3 Q Again, this is a relatively recent photograph?
4 A Yes, that's his personal assistant.
5 Q And the bottom left-hand corner?
6 A Again, that is one of Mr. Epstein's personal
7 assistants, that's Adriana Mousenska (phonetic).
8 Has Miss Mousenska since gotten married?
9 A Yes, her name now is
10 Q And the bottom right-hand corner?
11 A That is She is, again, a
12 personal assistant to Mr. Epstein. There has been some
13 talk that she is also romantically -- or I should say
14 sexually involved with Mr. Epstein.
15 Q How old are the defendants?
16 A Jeffrey is in his mid-fifties, and the three
17 girls are in their early twenties.
18 Do you have a copy of the draft indictment in
19 front of you?
20 A Yes, I do.
21 You mentioned when we were looking at the
22 photographs that the three females work as personal
23 assistants for Mr. Epstein, is that correct?
24 A Yes.
25 So he is their employer?
EFTA00226575
Page : 0
A Yes.
2 Q Are you familiar with the property located at
3 358 El Brillo Way in Palm Beach?
4 A That's Mr. Epstein residence.
5 Q And he owns that residence?
6 A Yes, he does.
7 Q Are you familiar with Defendant J.E.G.E., Inc.?
8 A Yes. J.E.G.E., Inc. is owned by Jeffrey
9 Epstein. He is the president, the owner, the sole
10 director. It's a business that is solely used for the
11 activities of one of Mr. Epstein's airplanes, which is his
12 Boeing 727. Its tail number is N908JE.
13 Q And you mentioned that he is the president and
14 the sole director. Is he also the sole shareholder?
15 A Yes, he is.
16 Q Are you familiar with Hyperion Air, Inc.?
17 A Yes. Hyperion Air, Inc. is also a business
18 owned by Mr. Epstein. He is also the president, the
19 director and the sole shareholder of that company as well.
20 That company solely does business with his other aircraft,
21 which is a Gulf Stream G-1159B. It bears a tail number
22 N909JE.
23 Q Is that a smaller aircraft than the Boeing?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Just to briefly remind the grand jury about
EFTA00226576
Page 20
1 where the evidence has been collected in this case, was
2 the start of your investigation information that you
3 received from the Palm Beach Police Department?
4 A Yes, it was.
5 Q And that included evidence seized during a
6 search of Mr. Epstein's home at El Brillo way?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Also controlled calls that the Palm Beach Police
9 Department placed?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And interviews of girls and other people by the
12 Palm Beach Police Department?
13 A Yes, as well as trash pulls that the Palm Beach
14 Police Department conducted on Mr. Epstein's residence.
15 Q Then when the FBI became involved, the FBI did
16 additional interviews of girls and of recruiters?
17 A Yes.
18 Q They obtained phone records?
19 A Yes, we have.
20 Q And records of payments?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Did this grand jury also subpoena travel
23 records?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Including the flight manifests of the planes
EFTA00226577
Page 2
1 owned by Hyperion and J.E.G.E.?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Did you also get corporate documents related to
4 those two planes?
5 A Yes, we have.
6 Q Once you had obtained all of this information,
7 did the FBI analyze the data, specifically the call
8 information and the flight information to put together a
9 pattern of activity by the defendants?
10 A Yes, we did.
11 Q So you have a series of phone calls coming from
12 these three assistants who were on the board, the two
13 girls who have been identified through this investigation?
14 A Yes.
15 Q When you spoke with those girls, did any of them
16 tell you that they had developed some sort of a personal
17 relationship with the assistants so that they were just
18 chatting over the telephone?
19 A No, not at all.
20 Q All of them said what about the phone calls?
21 A Said that the phone calls were made to set up
22 appointments for Mr. Epstein.
23 Q And the girls referred to it as appointments to
24 work, is that right?
25 A Yes, they were appointments to work. There is
EFTA00226578
Page 22
1 one exception, we're going to talk about her
2 probably next week. She did say on one or two occasions
3 that had called her when she had gone out
4 to California on a trip, I believe. But that is the only
5 time that that was ever mentioned. In fact, we asked, and
6 those phone calls were made for the purpose of setting up
7 appointments for Mr. Epstein.
8 Q Is the investigation continuing?
9 A Yes, it is.
10 Q Are you still trying to locate and interview
11 more girls?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Let's turn to the specific evidence reporting
14 the overt acts and offenses relating to Jane Doe's 1
15 through 5. I know that every member of the grand jury has
16 a copy of the draft indictment before them, and also a
17 chart.
18 Do you have a copy of that chart as well?
19 A I do.
20 Q Do you have photographs of the five girls that
21 we are going to talk about today?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And these are photographs of the people that we
24 are calling Jane Doe's 1 through 5?
25 A Yes.
EFTA00226579
Page 23
1 Q And Jane Doe Number 1, you have previously
2 testified about her?
3 A Yes, I have, that's Haley.
4 Q Jane Doe Number 2?
5 A That is G.
6 Q Jane Doe Number 3?
7 A That is Z.
8 Q Jane Doe Number 4?
9 A Faith P.
10 Q And Jane Doe Number 5?
11 A That is IIIIIII E.
12 JUROR: The purpose of Epstein's business with
13 his planes, did he transport?
14 THE WITNESS: To travel around.
15 JUROR: So it wasn't like a business of
16 transporting other people?
17 THE WITNESS: He flew other guests, sometimes
18 unaccompanied, sometimes accompanied.
19 JUROR: Kellin, Ross and Marcenkova, do you have
20 any evidence that they started young, like the rest
21 of the recruits?
22 THE WITNESS: we have evidence that they are his
23 personal assistants employed by him, not that it
was
24 anything like what we were discussing.
25
JUROR: There was an allegation that was made
EFTA00226580
Page 24
1 earlier, back in February, during one of these
2 discussions, about a specilic act that was performed.
3 Can I ask about that? We were told back in February
4 that one of the girls when interviewed had alleged
5 rape, and I hadn't heard about that allegation
6 recently.
7 THE WITNESS: That's probably Jane Doe Number 6.
8 We're going to talk about her, that he lorcibly put
9 her on the table and penetrated her. Yeah, she will
10 be coming up. We're going to do her probably next
11 week. She'll be the first one we'll talk about.
12 BY MS.
13 Q So turning to Jane Doe Number 1, R. You
14 testified about her earlier before this grand jury,
15 correct?
16 A Yes, I did.
17 Q And she also testified before this grand jury,
18 correct?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Can you remind us of her date of birth?
21 A She was born on April 9, 1986.
22 Q Could you briefly refresh the grand jury's
23 recollection of how she was recruited?
24 A She was approached on a beach by Molly Smyth and
25 Tony Figurello (phonetic). They approached her on a beach
EFTA00226581
Page 25
1 and asked her if she wanted to perform massages for
2 Mr. Epstein and make some money.
3 Q From the review of the phone records that you
4 have received, were you able to identify a telephone
5 number associated with Tony Figurello?
6 A Yes.
7
In tact, has Tony Figurello been interviewed?
8 A Yes, he has.
9 Q And has he admitted to being a recruiter for Mr.
10 Epstein?
11 A Yes, recruiter and driver.
12
13
II you could take a look at Overt Act Number 2,
which appears on page five. That states, "On or about
14 March 12, 2004, defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sara Kellin
15 caused Jane Doe Number 1 to travel to 358 Brillo Way of
16 Palm Beach, Florida."
17 Can you tell us what evidence you have regarding
18 that?
19 A We have reviewed phone records for and
20 Sara that indicate the calls took place, as well as phone
21 records for Tony Figurello and and calls that took
22 place on or about those dates. We've also looked at a
23 flight manifest, and were able to show that Mr. Epstein
24 arrived the day before, on the 11th. We also have
25 statement where she describes the sexual activity that
EFTA00226582
Page 26
1 took place.
2 Q On that date, March 12 of 2004, described
3 going to Mr. Epstein's house and performing a sexual
4 massage?
5 A Yes, on or about that day.
6 Q On or about that date, what did state
7 about being paid?
8 A She was paid $200.
9 Q And that relates to Overt Act Number 3?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And she stated that Mr. Epstein is the person
12 who gave her that?
13 A She told us that in her statement.
14 Q If you could take a look at Overt Act Number 95,
15 which is on page 17. On or about February 6, 2005,
16 Epstein had Jane Doe Number 1 to make one or more
17 telephone calls to Jane Doe Number 2.
18 First of all, who is Jane Doe Number 2?
19 A That would be G., our youngest victim.
20 Q Can you tell us what evidence you have related
21 to that overt act?
22 A We have the girl's statements that calls were
23 made. We also reviewed the phone records that indicated
24 that there was telephonic contact between the numbers
25 belonging to and
EFTA00226583
Page 27
1 Q And in the statement of both girls, did they
2 describe that is the person who called
3 looking for someone to come and work at Mr. Epstein's
4 house?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Looking at Overt Act Number 96. On or about
7 February 6, 2005, Epstein caused Jane Doe Number 1 to
8 transport Jane Doe Number 2 to 358 El Brillo Way.
9 What is the evidence related to that?
10 A Again, the statements of and ■ support
11 that as further evidence, and also reviewing the phone
12 records they indicate that there was telephonic contact
13 between Sara Kellin and and and
14 Q Overt Act Number 97, on or about February 6,
15 2005, Epstein made a payment of $300 to Jane Doe Number 2
16 and a payment of $200 to Jane Doe Number 1.
17 What was the evidence of that?
18 A Both and stated in their statements
19 that ■ was paid $300, and was paid $200 for
20 bringing
21 Q Did ■ explain why she was paid $300?
22 A Yes, she was paid $300 because she performed her
23 massage. Mr. Epstein digitally penetrated and used a
24 massager on Sage's vagina.
25 • After this date, after February 6, 2005, was
EFTA00226584
Page 28
1 $300 found in ■ G.'s purse when it was searched at her
2 school?
3 A Yes, it was, by a school administrator.
4 Q If you could look at Overt Act Number 117, which
5 is on page 19, and that states that on or about March 30,
6 2005, Kellin caused one or more calls to be made to a
7 telephone used by Jane Doe Number 1.
8 What evidence do you have related to that?
9 A We reviewed the phone records of Sara Kellin and
10 that indicate this.
11 Q And Overt Act 120, on or about March 31, Kellin
12 caused one or more calls to be made to a telephone used by
13 Jane Doe Number 1.
14 A Again, we reviewed the phone records that
15 indicated there was telephonic contact between the numbers
16 belonging to Sara and Haley.
17 Q Then we have Overt Act Number 122, which is also
18 March 31, that Epstein and Kellin caused Jane Doe Number 1
19 to make a call to a telephone used by Jane Doe Number 2.
20 What evidence do you have related to that?
21 A We have phone records that we have reviewed
22 belonging to Haley and In this case, we also have a
23 voice mail that was provided to us b the Palm Beach
24 Police Department, a voice mail of
leaving a voice
25 mail message on s phone.
EFTA00226585
Page 29
1 Q And Overt Act Number 123 refers to April 1st.
2 What evidence do you have related to that?
3 A we have reviewed the phone records of and
4 that indicate telephonic contact was made on this
5 day. We also again have another recorded voice mail by
6 left on phone.
7 Q These later calls, the March-April calls, are
8 those the controlled calls that the Palm Beach Police
9 Department was involved in?
10 A There was controlled calls placed to 's
11 cell phone and to place of work by under the
12 supervision of the Palm Beach Police Department.
13 Q And the voice mail message that you referred to
14 of calling what information was leaving
15 in that voice mail message?
16 A was asking for Sage to get back in touch,
17 that she had set up an appointment for at Epstein's
18 house on the following day, on that Saturday at around
19 10:30 or 11:00.
20 Q In addition to the phone records, was there
21 anything that the Palm Beach Police Department found that
22 also confirmed that this appointment actually was made.
23 A As I mentioned earlier, the Palm Beach Police
24 Department was doing trash pulls on Mr. Epstein's
25 residence. In there, there were two messages or notes in
EFTA00226586
Page 30
1 there on Epstein's personalized stationary. On it it
2 said, " with Sage on Saturday at 10:30, and on
3 Saturday with at 10:30." That's the exact message on
4 the two notes that were found in his trash when they
5 retrieved it on April 8.
6 Q If I could direct your attention to Count Number
7 Five, which appears on page 26. That is the charge of
8 enticement of a minor, referring to Jane Doe Number 1, and
9 Mr. Epstein and Miss Kellin are charged.
10 I know that you talked about the telephone
11 traffic. The calls between and Tony Figurello, did
12 they fall within that March 7 through March 11 time
13 period?
14 A A review of their telephone records do indicate
15 that there were phone calls made during that time.
16 Q And Jane Doe Number 1 actually went to Mr.
17 Epstein's home?
18 A Yes, and performed a massage for him in the
19 nude.
20 Q And she was paid 'or that?
21 A Yes, she was paid $200.
22 Q And he masturbated in front of her, correct?
23 A Yes, he did. I would like to include that Sara
24 Kellin took upstairs for that massage, and she also
25 set up the massage table and arranged the oil and
lotions
EFTA00226587
Page 31
1 for to do that massage.
2 Q And also, just so it's clear, how old was
3 at that time?
4 A She was 17.
5 MS. VILLAFANA: Are there any questions about
6 either how that evidence was presented or about the
7 charges related to Jane Doe Number 1? Seeing no
8 questions, we'll turn to Jane Doe Number 2.
9 BY MS. IILLAFANA:
10 Q You previously mentioned that that was ■ G.?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Let's turn to Count Number Six, which is on page
13 26, which is the enticement of ■ G. If you could tell
14 the grand jury about the evidence related to that.
15 A date of birth is
16 Q So during this period of February 5, 2005 to the
17 6th, how old was she?
18 A She was 14.
19 Q Can you remind the grand jury about the evidence
20 related to the enticement of
21 A As we stated earlier, we talked about the
22 telephone calls. We have shown that the facility of
23 interstate commerce was used by the telephone calls made
24 by their cell phones. We examined specifically Sara
25 Kellin's, and Those calls were made to
EFTA00226588
Page 32
1 set up and arrange appointments for Mr. Epstein to have
2 his massages.
3 Pertaining to during the massage that
4 occurred on those dates, February 6, in particular, I
5 think I have discussed with you before what occurred on
6 that, that he fingered IIIII- and that was his term for
7 it -- and that he used a massager on her.
8 He did masturbate during that massage, and she
9 believed he ejaculated because he wiped off his penis with
io a towel. She was paid $300, and we know that she was 14
11 at the time.
12 Q If we could turn to Count Number 43, which
13 appears on page 31. Count 43 is one of the travel counts.
14 If you could tell the grand jury, did a trip occur on
15 March 31, 2005?
16 A Yes, we have flight records that indicate a
17 flight occurred on that date.
18 Q What type of plane was used?
19 A I'm going to refer to the J.E.G.E., Incorporated
20 aircraft as just the Boeing 727. If we talk about the
21 Hyperion Air, Incorporated aircraft, which is the Gulf
22 Stream, I will just say the Gulf Stream. So on that date
23 he did travel on his Boeing 727, on 3-31.
24 Q And Mr. Epstein was aboard the plane on that
25 day?
EFTA00226589
Page 33
1 A Yes, he was.
2 Q With respect to the March 31st trip, was there
3 evidence of him setting up the appointment with ■ prior
4 to that trip?
A We do have telephonic contact between and
6 as well as and ■ on the day before
IIIIIIIIIII
7 and the day of travel.
8 Q And even though that appointment was never kept,
9 that ■ never went to that appointment, you have the
10 notes that were retrieved from the garbage that showed
11 that Mr. Epstein was expecting ■ to show up for that
12 appointment?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Anything else with respect to that particular
15 count?
16 A We also have the controlled calls and the voice
17 mails.
18 Q Turning to Count Number 60, which appears on
19 page 34, that is the attempted enticement of ■ G.
10 during the period of March 30 to April 1.
21 Again, at that point, ■ G. was how old?
22 A She was 14.
23 Q And we had talked about the telephone calls that
24 were used. One of the things that is relevant to this
25 particular count was that in addition to the fact that
EFTA00226590
Page 34
1 ■ G. was 14, did you interview a girl who went with
2 ■ when she went to Mr. Epstein's house back in
3 February?
4 A Yes, we did, that would be
5 Q And was interviewed?
6 A Yes, she was interviewed by the Palm Beach
7 Police Department.
8 Q what did II say about appearance?
9 A That she was the youngest looking girl that
10 came.
11 Q when you talked with did talk about
12 girls that Mr. Epstein liked in particular?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And was ■ G. one of those girls?
15 A Yes, she was one of his preferences. also
16 told us that Mr. Epstein said to her on one occasion, "The
17 younger, the better."
18 Q And there was never any attempt to get
19 I.D. or to confirm her actual age?
20 A No.
21 Q As we discussed before, Sage never actually went
22 to that point, right, so that is just an attempt?
23 A Yes.
24 MS. VILLAFANA: Are there any questions from the
25 grand jury? Seeing no questions, we'll see you next
EFTA00226591
Page 35
1 week. Thank you.
2 (Witness excused.)
3
4
5
6
7
8 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
9
10 I CERTIFY pages 1 to 35 is a true transcript of
11 my shorthand notes of the testimony of E.
12 KUYRKENDALL, before the Federal Grand Jury, West Palm
33 Beach, Florida, on the 8th day of May, 2007.
14 Dated at West Palm Beach, Florida this 23rd day
15 of May, 2007.
16
17
18
19
tic sii>" 4/1 4/1,
20
Philip W. May, Court Reporter
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA00226592
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
IN RE: OPERATION LEAP YEAR
Federal Grand Jury, 07-103
West Palm Beach, Florida
May 8, 2007
APP •
ESQUIRE
Assistant United States Attorney
Foreperson
TESTIMONY
OF
JASON RICHARDS
Exhibit 25
EFTA00226593
Page 2
1 The sworn testimony of JASON RICHARDS was taken
2 before the Federal Grand Jury, West Palm Beach
3 Division, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, State
4 of Florida, on the 8th day of May, 2007.
5 Philip W. May, Court Reporter, was authorized to
6 and did report the sworn testimony.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA00226594
Page 3
1 (The witness entered the grand jury room.)
2 JASON RICHARDS
3 having been duly sworn by the grand jury foreperson,
4 was examined and testified on his oath as follows:
5 EXAMINATION
6 BY
7 Q Special Agent could you state and
8 spell your name for the record.
9 A
10 • By whom are you employed?
11 A I'm employed by the FBI.
12 Q What is your position with the FBI?
13 A a special agent, and have been so for four
14 years.
15 Q Are you one of the agents assigned to the
16 investigation known as Operation Leap Year?
17 A Yes, I am.
18 Q Were subpoenas caused to be issued on behalf of
19 this grand jury in connection with that investigation?
20 A Yes.
21 • And have documents been received in response to
22 those?
23 A Yes.
24 • What additional subpoenas have been issued, and
25 what have you received in response?
EFTA00226595
Page 4
A Additional subpoenas that have been issued
2 include OLY-28 to Colonial Bank, along with OLY-29, which
3 was issued to Palm Beach National Bank & Trust Company.
4 That was served on March 5, 2007. It should be known that
5 Palm Beach National Bank & Trust Company is now operated
6 by Colonial Bank, which we learned in the issuance
7 process. We did receive documents back from Colonial
8 Bank, which covered both subpoenas, on April 25, 2007.
9 Q And those sought information relating to bank
10 accounts belonging to Mr. Epstein?
11 A That is correct.
12 Q What else?
13 A Also served OLY-30 to Western Union Financial
14 Services seeking documents and records related to Jeffrey
15 Epstein. It was served on February 26, 2007, and we
16 received items back from Western Union on two separate
17 dates, and two packages, the first on April 9, 2007, and
18 the second on April 11, 2007.
19 Q And those sought records of wire transfers from
20 Mr. Epstein to girls whom have been identified for this
21 investigation?
22 A Yes.
23 Q What else?
24 A We also served OLY-31 to Western Union Financial
25 Services. It was served on February 26, 2007, and they
EFTA00226596
Page
1 returned information which we received on May 3, 2007.
2 Q The same type of information?
3 A Yes, the same type of information, seeking wire
4 transfer information from Jeffrey Epstein to victims.
5 We also served OLY-32 to J.P. Morgan Chase Bank.
6 After serving that one on February 26, 2007, they informed
7 us by letter that they are known as Chase, not J.P. Morgan
8 Chase. So we had to reissue another subpoena, which was
9 taken care of on March 22, '07.
10 We also issued OLY-40 on Chase Bank as well on
11 April 4, 2007. We received records on April 13, 2007 and
12 April 19, 2007 to cover all three subpoenas that were
13 served.
14 Q And those sought information related to bank
15 accounts and credit cards related to the defendants?
16 A Yes. Additionally, we served OLY-33 on Dr.
17 Thomas Rofranno (phonetic), who's a chiropractic doctor.
18 We were seeking records related to Jeffrey Epstein as a
19 patient. The subpoena was served on March 6, 2007, and
20 Thomas Rofranno provided materials on March 16, 2007.
21 Also we have OLY-36, which was served on the
22 Palm Beach County Health Department. It was served on
23 March 5, 2007, seeking birth certificates of our victims
24 that we were researching. We received the records from
25 the Palm Beach County Health Department on April 16, 2007.
EFTA00226597
Page 6
1 We also served two subpoenas on the Adult video
2 Warehouse. The first one was OLY-41, which was served --
3 both of these were served on April 24, 2007, and they were
4 seeking any transactions that had occurred on behalf of
5 Mr. Epstein or those individuals that were working for him
6 or with him. We received items back on the OLY-41
7 subpoena on April 30, 2007.
8 The second subpoena served on Adult Video
9 Warehouse was OLY-34. Again, it was served on April 24,
10 2007, and the Adult Video Warehouse complied and provided
11 us materials on April 30, 2007.
12 That concludes all of the items that we have
13 received to date for the outstanding subpoenas that were
14 issued.
15 Q Are the documents that you refer to in that box
16 that's on the desk?
17 A Yes, they are.
18 MS. VILLAFANA: Does anyone want to review those
19 documents? At this time, no one is requesting that
20 they want to review the documents today.
21 Would you please swear in the witness to
22 maintain those documents.
23 (Witness sworn in as custodian of the
24 records.)
25
(Witness excused.)
EFTA00226598
Page 7
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2
3 I CERTIFY pages 1 to 6 is a true transcript of
4 my shorthand notes of the testimony of JASON
5 RICHARDS, before the Federal Grand Jury, West Palm
6 Beach, Florida, on the 8th day of May, 2007.
7 Dated at West Palm Beach, Florida this 28th day
8 of May, 2007.
9
10
11
4. M.
12
13 Philip W. May, Court Reporter
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EFTA00226599
From: AFLS)
Sent:
To: USAFLS)
Subject: e:Operation Leap Year
You will not ha proval to go forward tomorrow with an indictment or to poceed
by complaint. has your memo and lefcourt's letter but he is out of the
district at the U Attorney's conference for the next several days.
I'm having trouble understanding - given how long this case has b ending -
what the rush is. This is obviously a very significant case and wants to
take his time making sure he is comfortable before proceeding.
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Original Message
Sent: Mon May 14 10:38:15 2007
Subject: Operation Leap Year
Good morning: I just received a call that Epstein's plane is flying from the
Virgin Islands to Newark now, so it looks like Epstein is going to show up for
his court appearance tomorrow. Can you let me know if the indictment is going
tomorrow or, if not whether we are authorized to proceed by Complaint?
Thank you.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone [Phone Redacted]
Fax [Phone Redacted]
179 Exhibit 26
EFTA00226600
IlliM :tneSe •
To:
Cc:
Subject: Op. Leap Year GJ Subpoena
Hi F hought I should run this by you. As I mentioned in the pros memo, when the Palm Beach PD
searched Epstein's home, they found computer monitors and equipment, but no CPUs. From the continued
investi ,ation we know that the computers were removed by Paul Lavery, a private investigator, with the help of
one of our targets. Now that we know that Lavery removed the computers, I would like to
subpoena the computers to the grand jury. Lavery is a private investigator and is believed to have been working
for Roy Black at the time. Today I spoke with a CCIPS duty attorney who told me that grand jury subpoenas
can be used to obtain computer equipment. I also spoke with the duty attorney in the Witness Immunity Section
and explained the situation. She said that we do not need Justice approval to subpoena the private investigator,
so long as his office is not located within the lawyer's ofl'•ice (it is not—Lavery is in Hialeah and Roy Black is
downtown).
I was intending to ask the grand jury if they will authorize a forthwith subpoena, or I may just give a short lead
time. I also intend to include a cover letter explaining that if Lavery turns over the equipment, he does not need
to appear before the grand jury. If he no longer has the equipment, he can either tell the agents where the
equipment currently is or he can appear before the grand jury to tell them. So, I am not looking for anything
that could be considered "privileged information," (such as who told him to remove the equipment, what were
the exact orders, etc.) just the location of physical evidence belonging to the target.
Any concerns/comments?
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone 561 209- I 047
Fax [Phone Redacted]
Tracking:
150
EFTA00226601
Sent: •
To:
Subject:
Hi all - I know 'list got back, so I don't expect a signed indictment. I have time set aside with the grand
jury tomorrow, am wondering if you have a sense of the direction where we are headed — i.c., approval of
an indictment something like the current draft, a complaint to allow for pre-indictment negotiations, an
indictment drastically different from the current draft? I am concerned about confusing the grand jury, which is
never a good thing.
Any guidance?
Thank you.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone [Phone Redacted]
Fax [Phone Redacted]
Tracking:
155
EFTA00226602
1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
2 WEST PALM BEACH
3
4
5
6
7
8 IN RE: OPERATION LEAP YEAR
9
10 /
11
Grand Jury #07-103 (TUES-WPB)
12 west Palm Beach, Florida
Tuesday, may 15, 2007
13
14
15 TESTIMONY
16 OF
17
18
19
20
21 APPEARANCE:
22
23 NANCY SIEGEL, COURT REPORTER
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
Exhibit 27
EFTA00226603
2
1 PROCEEDINGS
2
3 The sworn testimony of was taken
4 before the Federal Grand Jury, west Palm Beach Division,
5 701 Clematis Street, west Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
6 State of Florida, on the 15th day of May, 2007.
7 NANCY SIEGEL, Registered Merit Reporter and Notary
8 Public was authorized to and did report the sworn
9 testimony.
10 Thereupon,
11
12 a witness of lawful age, having been first duly sworn by
13 the foreperson, testified on her oath as follows:
14 BY MS.
15 Q Good morning, Special Agent. Could you state
16 and spell your name for the record.
17 A Special Agent
18
19 Q And with whom do you work?
20 A The FBI here in west Palm Beach.
21 Q And are you here today on the continuing
22 investigation known as Operation Leap Year?
23 A Yes, I am.
24 Q And you are one of the case agents on this
25 investigation, correct?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226604
3
1 A Yes, I am.
2 Q The last time you were here we were discussing
3 the evidence supporting various overt acts and charges
4 related to Jane Does number 1 and 2?
S A Yes.
6 Q Today we are going to start with Jane Doe
7 number 3. Can you tell the Grand Jury who that is and
8 summarize briefly your previous testimony about her.
9 A Jane Doe number 3 is z and she first
10 started, we have first phone contact with Kellen
11 starting in December of 2004, would have been 16
12 or 17 at that time, let me do the math real quick, she
13 would have been 16 sorry, I am sorry, she would have
14 been at that time 17, let's get it right, so she started
15
16
phone contact,
September of 2004.
IIIIIIIIIIIII
started calling her in
17 From testimony we know that went there
18 earlier, much earlier. P, which was Jane Doe
19 number 4 you will hear about next, they were good
20 friends and they both went in the spring of '04, prior
21 to 17th birthday, so did start giving
22 Mr. Epstein massages when she was 16, she performed a
23 Iew massages for Mr. Epstein and then took kind of a
24 little bit of a break.
25 The sexual activity that occurred with
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226605
4
1 Mr. Epstein when was under the age of 18
2 included digital penetration, the use of a vibrator on
3 grabbing and fondling of her breasts and her
4 buttock, she was given gifts by Mr. Epstein, she was
5 given a vibrator, she was given secret
6 underwear, she was also given a car that Mr. Epstein
7 rented for her for a number of months, she was paid $200
8 by Mr. Epstein and was the one that primarily
9 called to set up appointments and as you can see
10 that began in December of '04.
11 was also one of Mr. Epstein's
12 favorites, according to several of the other girls.
13 Q Just so the Grand Jury has an idea, how does
14 that translate into the number of phone calls between
15 and that you were able to calculate?
16 A Kellen called her, I guess calls between
17 the two of them ranged around 125 phone calls from
18 December 6th, 2004 until October, 2005.
19 Q And just briefly can you remind the Grand Jury
20 did ever tell Mr. Epstein her age?
21 A No, they did not ever discuss, she did not
22 tell him how old she was, but she did tell him where she
23 planned on going to school and that she was in soccer.
24 she stated that when it came to her age that
25 Mr. Epstein didn't care. As I mentioned earlier,
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226606
5
and were very good friends and would talk
2 about and Mr. Epstein would ask questions about
S
3 when was providing massages and as we will
4 talk about when we talk about Jane Doe number 4, which
5 is she told Mr. Epstein that she was a junior in
6 high school and that and her were in the same
7 classes together and that they were very good friends
8 and told us that at one point Fayth had come to
9 her because she had slipped about prom and she was
10 worried because Epstein was supposed to think she was 18
11 and she had talked about the prom and said she
12 never heard anything else about it and they never
13 brought it up.
14 Q Because, according to Mr. Epstein
15 didn't care really how old the girls were?
16 A Exactly.
17 Q And she never mentioned he asked her for her
18 age or asked for any form of identification to show
19 whether she was or was not over 18?
20 A
21 Q Now, if you could turn to the proposed
22 indictment and if i could ask you to look at overt act
23 number 59.
24 A we had a little knock at the door. Do you
25 want me to get it?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226607
6
1 Q Yes.
2 (Thereupon, there was a brief pause.)
3 A I will let you see a picture of Jane Doe
4 number 4, who we were talking about earlier, and
5 this is Is there anyplace you want to put it
6 right down here in front?
7 Q And just so the record is clear, those are the
8 photographs that we showed to the Grand Jury last week?
9 A Yes, it is.
10 Q so if you could turn to overt act number 59
11 which appears on page 12, and if you could explain to
12 the Grand Jury the evidence we have related to that
13 phone call or phone calls on December 6th, 2004.
14 A On December 6th, 2004 a review of the phone
15 records indicate that there was telephonic phone contact
16 between the numbers belonging to and
17 , as well as we have evidence with
18 statements of the phone calls being made to
19 her by Kellen.
20 Q And overt act number 60?
21 A A review of the phone records indicate
22 telephonic contact between the numbers belonging to
23 Kellen and on December 12, 2004.
24 Q And overt act number 64?
25 A A review of the phone records indicate
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226608
7
1 telephonic contact between numbers belonging to
2 Kellen and on December 14th, 2004.
3 And just so that it is clear to the Grand
4 Jury, when the overt acts says that defendant Kellen
5 made one or more telephone calls, that means that the
6 call is originating from phone, is that
7 correct?
8 A Yes, it does.
9 Q And if you could turn to overt act number 71.
10 A on December 20th a review of the phone records
11 indicate that there was telephonic contact between ■
12 Kellen and
13 Q And overt act number 79?
14 A on January 6th, 2005 a review of phone records
15 indicate there was telephone contact between numbers
16 belonging to
17 Q And number 83?
18 A On January 14th, 2005 a review of the phone
19 records indicate telephonic contact between numbers
20 belonging to
21 Q And with respect to the other overt acts
22 related to the phone calls which would be 94, 100, 102,
23 104, 112, 118, 125, 129 and 132 is the evidence the
24 same?
25 A Yes, on or about each of those dates a review
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226609
8
1 of the phone records indicated telephonic contact
2 between the numbers belonging to M and
3 illillas well as statements.
4 Q Now, if I could direct your attention to count
5 number 7 which appears on page 26 of the draft
6 indictment, that is a charge of indictment of a minor
7 during the period of December 6th, 2004 through June 2nd
8 of 2005, could you summarize for the Grand Jury the
9 evidence related to that count.
10 A on or about these dates the facility of
11 interstate commerce, the telephone, specifically ■
12 a , were utilized to set up
13 appointments, massage appointments for Epstein.
14 During the massages and on more than one
15 occasion Epstein digitally penetrated Zylus, he
16 used a massager directly on her vagina and Epstein
17 directed to straddle him while he masturbated
18 and rubbed his penis between her legs, he would
19 masturbate, he would reach through her legs as she was
20 straddling him, there was no penetration of his penis in
21 her vagina, though.
22 He touched breasts, he would
23 masturbate. He paid on multiple occasions $200.
24 BOth and Jeffrey Epstein have escorted
25 upstairs for these massages and Mr. Epstein gave
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226610
9
1 a vibrator, secret bra and panty sets
2 and he also rented her a car for several months.
3 Q And just so that it is clear, you mentioned he
4 paid her on several occasions, he paid her every time
5 she performed these lewd acts, correct?
6 A Yes, 8200.
7 Q And is listed as a defendant with
8 respect to Jane Doe number 3 as well, and can you
9 explain to the Grand Jury a little bit more about who
10 is and why she is charged in this count?
11 A Adriana Ross is one of Mr. Epstein's personal
12 assistants as well and she made appointments for him for
13 these massages.
14 We have contact between phone
15 and phone, she contacted approximately
16 25 times.
17 Q And that's why she is also charged with
18 someone who is either an aider or abetter or a
19 coconspirator with respect to this?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Okay. If I could direct your attention to
22 Count number 32 which appears on page 30, Count number
23 32.
24 A I got 32.
25 Q what is the evidence related to?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226611
10
1 A I am sorry, I didn't hear you ask me the
2 question, I thought you said refer to it.
3 The evidence is we have flight records that
4 indicate on December 13th, 2004 Epstein traveled to Palm
S Beach County on the Gulfstream, there was telephonic
6 contact between Kellen and the day
7 before or the day of travel , we also have the sexual
8 conduct between Jeffrey Epstein and as we
9 described earlier in Count 7.
10 Q And just to refresh the recollection of the
11 Grand Jury, the Gulfstream aircraft is the one owned by
12 Hyperion?
13 A Air, Inc.
14 Q And when you said that there was telephone
15 contact, you recall that in overt act number 60 that we
16 discussed phone calls on December 12th, correct?
17 A we did.
18 Q okay. If I could direct you to Count number
19 35 and if you could tell the Grand Jury about the
20 evidence according to that count.
21 A Again, we have flight records that indicate
22 that on January 6th, 2005 Ipstein traveled to Palm Beach
23 County on the Gulfstream again, there was telephonic
24 contact between Kellen and Vanessa the day before,
25 the day of that travel , we also talked about the sexual
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226612
11
1 conduct between Jeffrey and between Epstein and
2
3 Q And can you tell us again what aircraft they
4 Ilew on on January 6th?
5 A That was the Gulfstream which was owned by
6 Hyperion Air, Inc.
7 Q okay. If I could direct you to Count 36 and
8 again if you could summarize that evidence.
9 A we have flight records that indicate that on
10 January 14th, 2005 Epstein, and Ross traveled to
11 Palm Beach County on the Boeing 727 that Mr. Epstein
12 owns, there was telephonic contact between
13 and the day before, the day of that
14 travel, as well as we have the sexual conduct between
15 Jeffrey Epstein and zylus as we described
16 earlier, and I will tell you that
17 Kellen, Mr. Epstein's personal assistant, and Ross is
18 we talked about just a few minutes ago,
19 Mr. Epstein, another of Mr. Epstein's personal
20 assistants.
21 Q And if I could direct your attention to Count
22 37 and ask you to summarize the evidence related to that
23 count.
24 A le have flight records that indicate that on
25 February 3rd, 2005 Mr. Epstein and traveled
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226613
12
1 to Palm Beach County on the Boeing 727, there was
2 tele honic contact between and
3 the day before or the day of travel and we have
4 the sexual conduct between Epstein and
5 Q And if i could direct your attention to Count
6 number 38.
7 A In Count number 38 we have flight records that
8 indicate on February 10th, 2005 Mr. Epstein,
9 traveled to
=MEM
10 Palm Beach County on the Gulfstream, there was telephone
11 contact between Kellen and zylus the day
12 before or the day of travel, we also have the sexual
13 conduct between Mr. Epstein and .
14 Q Now, I am sorry, on Count number 38, which
15 airline were they on?
16 A They were on the Gulfstream.
17 Q Can I ask you to double-check that? There is
18 an inconsistency between the chart and the indictment or
19 we can save that for a later date.
20 A It is right here.
21 Q I will mark that we need to check on Count
22 number 38.
23 A I have the flight manifest with me i you want
24 me to check, I don't know i you want me to do that now.
25 Q Yes, il you don't mind.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226614
13
1 (Thereupon, there was a brief pause.)
2 A In Count 38, plight records indicate on
3 February 10th, 2005 that Mr. Epstein, Kellen,
4 and marcinkova were in fact on the
5 Boeing 727.
6 Q So the draft indictment contains the correct
7 information?
8 A Yes, it does.
9 Q what company owns the Boeing 727?
10 A JEGE, Inc., incorporated.
11 Q And if I could take you to count number 39.
12 A Evidence shows through flight records that on
13 February 21st, 2005 Epstein,
14 and traveled to Palm Beach County on
15 the Boeing 727, there was telephonic contact between
16 Kellen and the day before or the day
17 of travel, there was also the sexual conduct between
18 Epstein and
19 Q And if I could take you to count number 40,
20 please.
21 A we have flight records that indicate on
22 February 24th, 2005 Epstein, Nadia
23 Marcinkova traveled to Palm Beach County on the Boeing
24 727, there was telephonic contact between Kellen
25 and the day before, the day of travel, and
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226615
14
1 there was sexual conduct between JefI rey Epstein and
2 as we described earlier in Count 7.
3 Q And you could do count 42.
4 A we have evidence that shows [light records,
5 that 'light records indicate that on March 18th, 2005
6 Epstein traveled to Palm Beach County on the Boeing 727,
7 there was telephonic contact between Kellen and
8 the day of or the day before travel , we
9 have the sexual conduct between Mr. Epstein and
10 Q And just referring to that count,
11 is named, although she was not on the flight that day,
12 is that correct?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And you said that she made the telephone calls
15 with correct?
16 A Yes, and we also do have -- we have
17 interviewed Mr. Epstein's pilots and one of the pilots
18 indicated that was the one that arranged all of
19 Mr. Epstein's travel arrangements and so she is
20 responsible for making his arrangements to travel to
21 Palm Beach as well as call the girls for the
22 appointments.
23 Q If I could take you to Count number 43,
24 please.
25 A Flight records indicate that on March 31st,
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226616
15
1 2005 Mr. Epstein traveled to Palm Beach County on the
2 Boeing 727, there was telephonic contact between
3 and the day before or the day of travel,
4 we also have the sexual conduct between Epstein as
5 described earlier in count 7.
6 Q Again, in Count 44, what is the evidence
7 related to that?
8 A Flight records indicate that on April 8th,
9 2005 Epstein and traveled to Palm Beach
10 County on the Gul stream and there was telephonic
11 contact between Kellen and on the
12 day before or the day of travel , we also have the sexual
13 conduct between Mr. Epstein and
14 Q And if you could go through 45, 46 and 47.
15 A Count 45 we have flight records that indicate
16 on April 27th, 2005 Epstein and Kellen traveled to
17 Palm Beach County on the Gulfstream, there is telephone
18 contact between Kellen and the day
19 before or the day of travel and we have the sexual
20 conduct between Jeffrey and
21 In Count 46 we have flight records that
22 indicate that on may 6th, 2005 Epstein, Kellen and
23 traveled to Palm Beach County on the
24 Gulfstream.
25 we have also telephonic contact between
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226617
16
1 Kellen and either the day before or the
2 day of travel and we have the sexual conduct between
3 Epstein and and in Count 47 on May 19th, 2005
4 we have flight records that indicate Epstein, ■
5 Kellen and traveled to Palm Beach County on
6 the Gulfstream and we have telephone contact between
7 Kellen and the day before or the day
8 of travel.
9 we also have the sexual conduct between
10 Epstein and as described in the earlier
11 count, count 7.
12 Q NOw, if I could direct your attention to Count
13 number 51 which appears on page 33, that is the sex
14 trafficking of a minor involving Jane Doe number 3, and
15 could you briefly summarize that, the evidence related
16 to that.
17 A As we discussed earlier in Count 7, I told you
18 guys about the sexual conduct between Epstein and
19 the monies that were paid to by
20 Mr. Epstein, the phone activity we discussed between
21 Kellen and zylus, it began in December,
22 and we also have phone calls beginning in January Irom
23 Adriana Ross to at that time was 17
24 years of age, and we also have statements from
25 and regarding Mr. Epstein's knowledge of their
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226618
17
1 ages.
2 Q And with respect to the affect on interstate
3 commerce related to that count we have both the
4 telephone calls, correct?
S A Yes.
6 Q As well as mr. Epstein actually traveling in
7 interstate commerce to engage in this activity, correct?
8 A Yes, we do.
9 Q is there anything else that you would like to
10 mention about Jane Doe number 3?
11 A Not at this time, no.
12 Q If I could direct you to Jane Doe number 4 and
13 if you could summarize for the Grand Jury the
14 information related to Jane Doe number 4's activities.
15 A Jane Doe number 4 is P, I think you
16 wanted their birth dates, her birth date is June 30th,
17 1987, she was 16 years old and attended Royal Palm Beach
18 High School .
19 we first have contact through phone calls from
20 to Fayth on April 25th, 2004 which
21 indicates and shows that was clearly 16 years of
22 age when she started going to Mr. Epstein's and
23 performing massages for mr. Epstein.
24 our Jane Doe number 1, was the one
25 who recruited she basically told Fayth that she
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226619
18
1 could make $200, she needed to dress cute, he might try
2 to touch you, but it you eel uncomfortable just let him
3 know and he will stop, and the first massage that ■
4 did he repeatedly told and I mentioned this to
5 you in the last Grand Jury session, she was very shy and
6 he would repeatedly tell her not to be so shy, that she
7 didn't have to be so shy.
8 Epstein asked her to remove her clothing and
9 she told him no, and throughout the massage he would
10 repeatedly grab at her, he grabbed her butt, he did
11 masturbate through this first massage and pulled her
12 clothes, she would pull away and she was paid $200 for
13 that.
14 upon leaving the first massage Mr. Epstein
15 told that was willing to do more she
16 would get paid more. He also informed that if she
17 would bring her pretty friends he would also pay her for
18 bringing her pretty friends. He told that
19 would get her phone number.
20 says that she performed three to four
21 massages for Mr. Epstein. We have with
22 approximately a hundred phone calls between
23 and
24 When I interviewed she became very upset
25 when we got to the sexual massages that she did for
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226620
19
1 Mr. Epstein. At this point, this is as much as we know
2 at this point of what occurred with Mr. Epstein and
3 .
4 She did three to four massages and those last
5 massages they became more sexual in nature, he asked her
6 again to remove her clothing, this time she took her
7 shirt off, he asked her to take her bra off, she said
8 no.
9 He again would touch her breasts, he would
10 touch her butt, he did continue to masturbate, this time
11 she believes he ejaculated. He continued to compliment
12 her, tell her she had a nice body and that she was
13 pretty.
14 says that he was very nice and engaged
15 her in conversation, asked her, you know, if she had a
16 boyfriend. In the last massage she discusses with me,
17 and this massage Mr. Epstein told her to stop being shy
18 and asked her to take her clothes off and Fayth said
19 that she had a boyfriend and she didn't feel comfortable
20 taking her clothes off and he told her you should know
21 what to expect by now when you come here, and he jerked
22 on her pants as to like jerk them down, so she did on
23 this last massage get down to her bra and underwear.
24 She describes his tone at this time being
25 frustrated and irritated, she stayed in her bra and
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226621
20
1 underwear, but during the massage he grabbed her bra and
2 pulled it down and fondled her breasts, he had
3 instructed her to pinch his chest, his nipples while she
4 was massaging his chest, he tried to grab her all over,
5 he knew that she was upset with this massage.
6 At one point Mr. Epstein asked her if she had
7 sex with her boyfriend, informs him that she is
8 still a virgin and he responds what, you don't like sex?
9 And that's pretty much the way that last massage went.
10 Q Now, Special Agent Kuyrkendall , just to
11 interrupt you, you mentioned that Jane Doe number 4
12 became very upset as you were asking her about the
13 massages, correct?
14 A Yes.
15 And when she was describing this incident with
16 him grabbing at her breast and trying to pull her pants
17 down and instructing her to remove her pants, correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q You had talked last week about the expert that
20 you had spoken with about interviewing victims of these
21 types of offenses?
22 A Right.
23 Q And you had told us about how a victim may be
24 reticent at first to tell the entire story until a
25 rapport is built?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226622
21
1 A Right.
2 Q can you tell the Grand Jury your impressions
3 of your interview with Fayth?
4 A She became so lisibly upset, and a lot of the
5 girls are embarrassed of what took place, but when she
6 talked about the last massage and him grabbing her
7 breasts and fondling her breasts she was in tears and we
8 stopped the massage and we calmed her down, trying to go
9 back there was just too difficult, 1 could not get her
10 back to discussing anything Iurther that had taken
11 place.
12 I have since then -- I have since talked to
13 again and 1 feel there is more there, but I just
14 don't think she is ready to disclose what took place.
15 Q so based upon the more than 60 telephone calls
16 as well as --
17 A Approximately a hundred.
18 Q -- 100 telephone calls and your conversations
19 with you think there is probably more than [our
20 massages that happened?
21 A YeS, I do
22 Q was there anything else that you wanted to
23 discuss with the Grand Jury?
24 A Just, as I stated in the beginning of those
25 massages, they engaged in conversation and throughout
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226623
22
1 that conversation, you know, she did inform Mr. Epstein
2 that she was a junior in high school and again she is
3 one of the girls that talks about being Mr.
4 Epstein's favorite, so because Mr. Epstein knew they
5 were friends they would engage in conversation about
6 and Fayth would mention they were in the same
7 classes at school and they would discuss the friendship
8 they had between the two girls with Mr. Epstein and I
9 think that's it.
10 Q All right. If we could turn to the
11 post-indictment to overt act number 4 which appears on
12 page number 5.
13 Did you obtain telephone records for Jane Doe
14 number 4?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And did you compare those with the phone
17 records of Kellen and others?
18 A Yes, I did.
19 Q And can you tell us with respect to overt act
20 number 4 what evidence you have related to that?
21 A A review of the phone records indicate that
22 there was telephonic contact between the numbers
23 belonging to and Fayth as well as
24 statements that would call her to make
25 appointments.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226624
23
1 Q And if we could go through overt acts 6, 8, 9
2 and 11, all of which appear on page 6.
3 A A review of the phone records on May 3rd,
4 2004, may 14th, 2004, may 20th, 2004 and lune 3rd, 2004,
5 a review of those phone records indicate that there was
6 telephonic contact between numbers belonging to
7 Kellen and as well as statements.
8 Q If I could take you to overt acts 14, 15 and
9 19 which appear on page 7.
10 A A review of the phone records on June 11th,
11 2004, June 20th, 2004 and July 10th, 2004, they indicate
12 that there is telephonic contact between the numbers
13 belonging to Kellen and
14 Q And if I could ask you to turn to page 8 and
15 if you could address overt acts 24 and 25.
16 A A review of the phone records on July 18th,
17 2004 and July 22nd, 2004, a review of Kellen's and
18 phone records indicate there is
19 telephonic contact belonging to both of them as well as
20 statements that Kellen would arrange
21 appointments with her.
22 Q If I could take you to page 9 of the draft
23 proposed indictment and ask about overt acts 29 and 30.
24 A A review of the phone records indicate there
25 is telephonic contact on July 22nd, 2004 and August 4th,
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226625
24
1 2004 between numbers belonging to Kellen and
2 as well as statements.
3 Q If I could take you to page 10 of the draft
4 proposed indictment and ask you about overt acts 37 and
5 43.
6 A A review of phone records indicate telephonic
7 contact on August 25th, 2004 and October 3rd, 2004
8 between numbers belonging to Kellen and ■
9
10 Q And it you could turn to page 11 of the draft
11 proposed indictment and if you would address overt acts
12 47 and 48.
13 A A review of the phone records indicate
14 telephonic contact on october 30th, 2004 and November
15 4th, 2004 between numbers belonging to Kellen and
16 P, as well statements.
17 Q okay. And i you could go to page 14 of the
18 draft proposed indictment and address overt act number
19 77.
20 A A review of phone records indicate that on
21 January 4th, 2005 there was telephonic contact between
22 Kellen and as well as
23 statements.
24 Q I'm sorry. If you could turn to page 16 of
25 the draft proposed indictment and address overt act
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226626
25
1 number 87.
2 A A review of the phone records indicate that on
3 January 22, 2005 there is telephonic phone contact
4 between numbers belonging to Kellen and and
5 I believe I said on January 22nd, 2005.
6 Q Okay. And it you could go to page 17 and
7 address overt act number 101.
8 A On February 14th, 2005 a review of the phone
9 records indicate that there was telephonic contact on
10 that day between numbers belonging to Kellen and
11 P, as well as statements.
12 Q If you could turn to pages 18 and 19 and it
13 you would address overt acts 106, 114 and 116.
14 A A review of the phone records indicate that
15 there is telephonic contact between Kellen and
16 on February 24th, 2005 as well as Fayth's
17 statements.
18 Q overt act number 114 says on March 18th, 2005
19 defendant Kellen prepared a written message to defendant
20 Epstein regarding Jane Doe number 4, could you tell the
21 Grand Jury what the evidence is related to that?
22 A we have a review of the message pads that were
23 recovered during the search warrant that the state
24 served that showed that Kellen wrote a message to
25 Epstein regarding Fayth and that was done on March 18th,
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226627
26
1 2005.
2 Q Do you happen to remember what the message
3 said?
4 A I have those with me.
5 Q would you mind getting them out?
6 A Do you want to mark it?
7 Q If you could just read it to the Grand Jury.
8 A It is a message written by for Jeffrey
9 on 3/18/2005, it looks like 4:21 p.m., and the message
10 reads is it okay if will come at 5:00 and there is
11 a question mark.
12 Q And if i could direct you to overt act number
13 116, what the evidence is related to that.
14 A A review of the phone records on march 29th,
15 2005 indicate that there is telephonic contact between
16 Kellen and as well as her --
17 statements.
18 Q And il I could take you to overt act number
19 127 which is on page 20.
20 A A review of phone records on April 11th, 2005
21 indicate that there is telephonic phone contact between
22 the numbers belonging to Adriana Ross and as well
23 as statements.
24 Q Now, if you could go to Count number 8, which
25 alleges that between April 25th, 2004 and June 29th,
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226628
27
1 2005 Jeffrey Epstein, Kellen, Adriana Ross enticed
2 Jane Doe number 4 to engage in sexual activity or
3 prostitution.
4 A On or about these dates we have a facility of
interstate commerce, specifically the telephones, ■
6 Kellen, and which were utilized to
7 set up, arrange massage appointments for Epstein, we
8 have 'ellen taking upstairs to set up the
9 massage table, she would set the massage table up as
10 well as set up the lotions and the oils, we have during
11 those massages Epstein would grab and pull closer
12 to him as he masturbated, he repeatedly would ask her to
13 remove her clothing, wearing her bra and underwear,
14 Epstein would pull down her bra and grabbed at her
15 breast, he attempted to touch her vagina at one point
16 but she stopped him, he masturbated, she believes that
17 he ejaculated, he paid her $200, he told her that he
18 would pay her to bring her pretty friends and would pay
19 her more if she would do more.
20 Q And just so that this is clear to the Grand
21 Jury, June 29th of 2005 is the day before Jane Doe
22 number 4 turned 18, is that correct?
23 A Yes.
24 Q so was there activity that continued past her
25 18th birthday?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226629
28
1 A Yes.
2 Q If I could direct you to Count number 17,
3 which appears on page 28, and tell us about the evidence
4 related to that.
5 A we have evidence through light records that
6 indicate on May 21st, 2004 that Epstein and
7 traveled to Palm Beach County on the
8 Gulfstream, we have telephonic contact between and
9 Kellen the day before or the day of travel and we
10 have the sexual conduct between Epstein and as we
11 described earlier in Count 8.
12 Q And you could go through Counts 18 and 19.
13 A we have 'light records that indicate on June
14 4th, 2004 Epstein and Nadia Marcinkova traveled to Palm
15 Beach County on the Gulfstream, we have telephone
16 contact between Kellen and the day before,
17 the day of travel, we have sexual conduct between
18 Mr. Epstein and as discussed earlier.
19 we have also Count 19 on June 20th, 2004 we
20 have light records that indicate that Epstein and Nadia
21 traveled to Palm Beach County on the Boeing
22 727.
23 we have the telephone contacts between
24 Kellen and the day before, the day of travel, we
25 also have the sexual conduct between Jeffrey and
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226630
29
1 as we described earlier in Count 8.
2 Q Could you do the same for Counts 22 and 23,
3 please.
4 A Count 22 we have flight records that indicate
5 on July 22nd, 2004 Epstein, Kellen, Nadia
6 traveled to Palm Beach County on the Boeing
7 727, we have the telephonic phone contact between ■
8 Kellen and the day before or the day of travel, we
9 also have the sexual conduct between Jeffrey Epstein and
10 as we described earlier, and Count 23 we have
11 flight records that indicate on August 6th, 2004 Epstein
12 and Kellen traveled to Palm Beach County on the
13 Boeing 727, we have telephonic contact between
14 Kellen and two days prior to Epstein and
15 traveling to Palm Beach County, we have sexual
16 conduct between Jeffrey Epstein and as we
17 described earlier.
18 Q And if you could do the same for Count number
19 28, please.
20 A Count number 28 we have flight records that
21 indicate on November 5th, 2004 Epstein, Kellen,
22 Nadia Marcinkova traveled to Palm Beach County on the
23 Gulistream, we have telephonic contact between
24 Kellen and P the day before or the day of travel,
25 we have the sexual conduct between Epstein and
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226631
30
1 Q And if I could direct you to Count number 35,
2 you testified previously about the people who were
3 aboard the plane.
4 was there also telephone contact on January
5 6th excuse me, shortly before the flight on January
6 6th, 2005 between MIN and this Jane Doe?
7 A Yes, two days before.
8 Q And if you look at Count number 40, again, you
9 had previously told us about who was on board the plane.
10 Can you tell us whether there was also telephone contact
11 shortly before that?
12 A There was telephone contact the day of or the
13 day before.
14 Q All right. Between who and who?
15 A Between Kellen and
16 Q okay. And i you could look at Count 43, you
17 also had testified previously about who was aboard the
18 plane on that day.
19 was there also telephone contact between Jane
20 Doe number 4 -- excuse me, Jane Doe number 4 and
21 Kellen?
22 A Yes, two days before.
23 Q And if I could direct you to Count number 52,
24 which is the sex trafficking offense, and if you could
25 summarize again for the Grand Jury the evidence related
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226632
31
1 to that.
2 A we discussed in count 8 the sexual conduct
3 that occurred between Fayth and Epstein during the
4 massages that took place, we talked about the money that
5 was paid to her by Mr. Epstein and the offer of more
6 money if she would do more as well as if she would bring
7 her friends.
8 Through statements we have also that
9 Kellen has paid her in the past for bringing a
10 riend, we have the phone acti II.ty between Kellen
11 and which started in April, 2004, we know
12 was 16 at the time, we also have phone activity between
13 Adriana Ross and Fayth beginning in the spring of 2005
14 when would be 17, with the statements of and
15 the knowledge that Mr. Epstein knew their age,
16 and we have gone through that regarding informing
17 Mr. Epstein that she was a junior in high school, that
18 she was classmates with and then
19 statements that Fayth was concerned because she was
20 discussing prom with Mr. Epstein, and both girls at that
21 time of the phone calls were under the age of 18.
22 Q Just again so it is clear for the Grand Jury,
23 neither nor ever specifically said hey,
24 Jeffrey, I am 17, but they provided information that
25 should have caused him to try to figure out whether in
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226633
32
1 fact they were adults?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Any questions about Jane Doe number 4 before
4 we turn to Jane Doe number 5? Yes, ma'am.
5 A GRAND JUROR: I have to say something here,
6 it it is a stupid question forgive me if it is,
7 from what I heard, maybe I heard wrong, there were
8 three to four massages that Jane Doe, or
9 Fayth P said that she had and you enumerated quite
10 a few sexual contact.
11 How do you know about this, do you have
12 records, how do you know they were sexual contact?
13 THE WITNESS: Through interviewing
14 A GRAND JUROR: She said she only had three to
15 four massages.
16 A GRAND JUROR: Her question is more like
17 there is 20 phone calls.
18 A GRAND JUROR: There is tons of them.
19 THE WITNESS: Exactly, that is what we were
20 discussing earlier when we discussed that there is
21 more than what is willing to admit at this
22 time.
23 A GRAND JUROR: I got it. So she said she
24 only had three to four.
25 A GRAND JUROR: There is a hundred phone
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226634
33
1 calls.
2 A GRAND JUROR: You said you found out through
3 i am a little bit confused about that.
4 THE WITNESS: Through interviewing ■ , she
5 stated that she had three or four massages from
6 Mr. Epstein.
7 BY MS. VILLAFANA:
8 Q Special Agent the sexual activity
9 that you described that went through, that is what
10 she said happened during those three to four massages,
11 correct?
12 A Right.
13 Q Does that answer your question?
14 A GRAND JUROR: Not really. How do we know
15 like about all these 25, 30?
16 A GRAND JUROR: There is more dates that match
17 up with the amount of massages.
18 A GRAND JUROR: There were a hundred phone
19 calls.
20 A GRAND JUROR: Are we supposed to assume a
21 phone call was made each time they had sexual
22 contact?
23 THE WITNESS: No. There are lots of phone
24 calls made arranging appointments between the
25 girls, that doesn't mean that every phone call that
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226635
34
1 was made was a trip over to Mr. Epstein's house to
2 perform a massage.
3 MS. Yes, ma'am.
4 A GRAND JUROR: couldn't they put anything in
5 this indictment about stalking her, are there any
6 rules against stalking children?
7 MS. VILLAFANA: I will address -- that is a
8 legal question that i will address when the Special
9 Agent is outside of the Grand Jury. Any other
10 factual questions related?
11 A GRAND JUROR: I don't have a question
12 relating to Jane Doe number 4, it was a question
13 asked last week, what does Mr. Epstein do for work,
14 how does he make his money? I asked that late,
15 late in the ame last week.
16 MS. Okay, I guess we can just
17 address that now.
18 BY MS. VILLAFANA:
19 Q What is Mr. Epstein's state of profession?
20 A He is an investor.
21 Q And he manages portfolios valued at about a
22 billion or more?
23 A Yes.
24 Q who is his best known client?
25 A The owner of the Limited and victoria secret.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226636
35
1 Q And you mentioned that as gifts Mr. Epstein
2 tended to give Victoria secrets panties and bra sets?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Does that answer the question?
5 A GRAND JUROR: Yes.
6 MS. Yes, ma'am.
7 A GRAND JUROR: Count 28 I thought I heard
8 that -- I thought I heard the detective say that it
9 was the Gulfstream rather than the Boeing 727 on
10 flight records, just for your info.
11 MS. VILLAFANA: Count number 28, let's go back
12 there.
13 BY MS. VILLAFANA:
14 Q Could you restate for the Grand Jury which
15 company owns the Gulfstream?
16 A The Gulfstream is owned by Hyperion Air, Inc.
17 Q And the Boeing is owned by whom?
18 A JEGE, Inc.
19 Q Any other questions before we go on to Jane
20 Doe number 5? We have four minutes.
21 Special Agent Kuyrkendall, why don't I ask you
22 to step outside so I can answer that question for the
23 Grand Jury and address some issues.
24 (The witness was excused from the Grand Jury
25 room.)
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226637
36
1 (Questions posed by the Grand Jury.)
2 (The testimony of the witness was concluded
3 before the Grand Jury.)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226638
37
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2
3
4
5 I certify pages 2 through 36 are a true transcript of my
6 shorthand notes of the testimony of E.
7 Kuyrkendall before the Federal Grand Jury, west Palm
8 Beach, Florida on the 15th day of Tuesday, 2007.
9
10 kIct\,,, A
11 Nancy Siegel -Notary Public
12 Commission #DD0282274
13 Expires may 8, 2008
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE ([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226639
LAW OFFICES OF
Gurtaban B. Laconic, PG
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
148 CAST 78,- STREET
NEW YORE., NEW YORK 10021
GERALD B. LEFCOURT TELEPHONE
IlifCOUR@WCOUSIAT COM 12 I a) 737-0400
FACSIMILE
([Phone Redacted]
SHERYL E. REICH
roichadcouriwtoum
RENATO C. STABILE
Pabil*Ellefoourtlawcorn
FAITH A. FRIE0mAN
iMatnenalelowitaw Torn May 22, 2007
VIA E-MAIL
Ft3W tief, IEs
pt Northern Region
Office of the United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Jeffrey Epstein
Dear al
I write as counsel to Jeffrey Epstein, the subject of a grand jury investigation being
conducted by your office.
I understand from you that in the next month or two a decision will be made by your
office whether to seek an indictment of Mr. Epstein. This will confirm that, prior to any such
decision being made, 1 and other attorneys on behalf of Mr. Epstein will be given an opportunity
to meet with you.
Additionally, because we believe that any decision to indict requires both a complex legal
analysis in a detailed factual context and resolution of significant policy concerns, if our meeting
does not resolve the matter, we would like an opportunity to make a presentation first to Matthew
Menchel, Chief of the Criminal Division, and Jeffrey Sloman, First Assistant United States
Attorney, and then, again, if no resolution is reached, the opportunity to meet with United States
EXHIBIT 28
EFTA00226640
L.Aw Orr ICES or
GERAIS) 13. InecounT, P.C..
Deputy Chief, Northern Region
Office of the United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
May 22, 2007
Page 2
Attorney Alexander Acosta.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call.
,Very truly yours,
A
Gerald B. Lefcourt
cc:
EFTA00226641
VilWane, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein
Attachments: 2007-05-22 letter to AUSA Lourie.pdf
Gentlemen,
Marie and I have already met with Lefcourt, which is really the meeting I promised him. I spoke to him last week and he
said he had more information they wanted to present. I told him he could make an appointment to come in again if he
wanted to and that we would meet with him again, but I did not promise that we would wait to give him a meeting
"before" we charged.
So, I think he is really ready for the next level rather than a second meeting with me. Mike Tein also mentioned to me
at some point that they wanted to make a presentation on the law and I suggested to him that he contact Matt without
telling him exactly what stage of review we were at. I don't know if Tein and Lefcourt have crossed wires or not.
In any event, I am forwarding this letter to you. I am going to suggest to Lefcourt the same thing that I suggested to
Tein. I assume you would grant his attorneys a chance to make whatever presentation they desire. It would probably
be helpful to us in any event to hear their legal arguments in case we have missed something. Whether in would be
present or grant them another meeting after that is his call.
Andy
- - -.\-- ----- .-^
From: ailto:[Email Redacted]]
Se
To:
Cc:
Subjeet-3effrey Epstein
Andy, attached is a letter seeking meetings. as discussed with you, but with others if it is not resolved. Thanks for your
attention. Could you email back so that I know you have received this letter?
Gerald B. Lefcourt
Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C.
148 E. 78th Street
New York New York 10021
Tel.
Fax
obkaletcourtlaw com
153 Exhibit 28
EFTA00226642
From:
Sent: PM
To:
Subject: : Jeitrey Epstein
IS u think?
1 just want to again voice my disagreement with promising to have a meeting or having a
urt or any other of Epstein's attorneys. As I mentioned, this is not a case where we will be
sitting down to negotiate whether a defendant will serve one year versus two years of probation. This is a case
where the defendant is facing the possibility of dozens of years of prison time. lust as the defense will defend a
case like that differently than they would handle a probation-type case, we need to handle this case differently.
Part of our prosecution strategy was already disclosed at the last meeting, and I am concerned that more will be
disclosed at a future meeting.
My co-chair, , who has prosecuted more of these cases than the rest of us combinedi anclaAcho
, also opposes a meeting. We have
been accused of not being "strategic thinkers" because of our opposition to these meetings, but we are simply
looking at this case as a violent crime prosecution involving stiff penalties rather than as a white collar or public
corruption case where the parties can amicably work out a light sentence.
With respect to the "policy reasons" that Lefcourt wants to discuss, those were already raised in his letter
(which is part of the indictment package) and during his meeting with Andy and myself. Those reasons are: (I)
he wants the Petit policy to trump our ability to prosecute Epstein, (2) this shouldn't be a federal offense, and
(3) the victims were willing participants so the crime shouldn't be prosecuted at all. Unless the Office thinks
that any of those arguments will be persuasive, a meeting will not be beneficial to the prosecution, it will only
benefit the defense. With respect to Lefcourt's promised legal analysis, that also has already been provided.
The only way to get additional analysis is to expose to the defense the other charges that we are considering. In
my opinion this would seriously undermine the prosecution.
The defense is anxious to have a meeting in order to delay the investigation/prosecution, to find out more about
our investigation, and to use political pressure to stop the investigation.
I have no control over the Office's decisions regarding whether to meet with the defense or to whom the facts
and analysis of the case will be disclosed. However, if you all do decide to go forward with these meetings in a
way that is detrimental to the investigation, then I will have to ask to have the case reassigned to an AUSA who
is in agreement with the handling of the case.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
Sent: Tuesda Ma 22 2007 6:33 PM
To:
Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein
EFTA00226643
fyi
From:
Sent: ay, ay
To: 'Gerald Lefcourt'
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein
I have your letter. I think we are on the same page, but to be sure I do want to clarify that we spoke the other week and
I did say that if you want to meet with me again, I am ready to do so. The wording of your letter, however, suggests
implicitly that I agreed to contact you before a decision is made to seek an indictment of Mr. Epstein. If that
was your
understanding, then please allow me to clarify. Our investigation is ongoing and if we decide to seek an indictment, we
don't intend to call Mr. Epstein's representatives to let him know that. Of course, in the interim, if you would like
to
make a presentation to us, we are willing to listen.
Along those lines, given the fact that we have already met once, with schedules being what they are, it makes
sense for
our criminal chief, Matt Menchel, to be included when you make another presentation, rather than working up the
chain incrementally. I realize you were being respectful in not attempting to leapfrog over me, which I appreciate. I
will pass on your request to meet with the U.S. Attorney as well, but can't commit for him one way or another. When
you have some dates in mind, let me know and I will try to set up a meeting in Miami.
From: Gerald Lefcourt [mailto:[Email Redacted]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:05 PM
TANIS
Subje e rey Epstein
attached is a letter seeking meetings, as discussed with you, but with others if it is not resolved.
Thanks for your
MI
attention. Could you email back so that I know you have received this letter?
Gerald B. Lefcourt
Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C.
148 E. 78th Street
New York, New York 10021
Tel.
Fax
0blOlefcourtlaw.com
Tracking:
2
EFTA00226644
Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject: FW: Jeffrey psein
Please put in your file. thx
From: Gerald Lefcourt [mailto:GBLglefcourtlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesda Ma 23, 2007 5:00 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein
Thanks for the email. I will get back to you as to timing of the meeting.
Gerald B. Lefcourt
Gerald B. Lefcourt. P C
148 E. 78th Street
New York New York 10021
Tel.
Fax ?Mr"
From: Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS) [mailto:Andrew.Lourtegusdoj.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:32 PM
To: Gerald Lefcourt
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein
other week and
I have your letter. I think we are on the same page, but to be sure I do want to clarify that we spoke the
suggests
I did say that if you want to meet with me again, I am ready to do so. The wording of your letter, however,
is made to seek an indictment of Mr. Epstein. If that was your
implicitly that I agreed to contact you before a decision
if we decide to seek an indictment, we
_understanding, then please allow me to clarify. Our investigation is ongoing and
in the interim, if you would like to
don't intend to call Mr. Epstein's representatives to let him know that. Of course,
make a presentation to us, we are willing to listen.
they are, it makes sense for
Along those lines, given the fact that we have already met once, with schedules being what
than working up the
our criminal chief, Matt Menchel, to be included when you make another presentation, rather
in not attempting to leapfrog over me, which I appreciate. I
chain incrementally. I realize you were being respectful
can't commit for him one way or another. When
will pass on your request to meet with the U.S. Attorney as well, but
you have some dates in mind, let me know and I will try to set up a meeting in Miami.
From: Gerald Lefcourt [mailto:GBLglefcourtlaw.com]
May 22, 2007 2:05 PM
T
C
Su
191
EFTA00226645
Andy, attached is a letter seeking meetings, as discussed with you, but with others if it is not resolved. Thanks for your
attention. Could you email back so that I know you have received this letter?
Gerald B. Lefcoun
Gerald B. Lefeourt. P.0
148 E. 78th Street
New York New York 10021
Tel. .0400
Fax
oblate court aw.com
142
EFTA00226646
1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
3
4
5
6
COPY
7 RE: OPERATION LEAP YEAR
8 /
9
10
1 1
12 TESTIMONY
13
14
15
SPECIAL AGENT
Ill=
16
17
18 Federal Grand Jury 07-103
Federal Building
19 U.S. Courthouse
West Palm Beach, Florida
20 Tuesday, May 22, 2007
21
22 APPEARANCES:
23
24
25
Exhibit 29
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226647
2
t 1 The sworn testimony of SPECIAL AGENT
2 E. was taken before the
3 Federal Grand Jury, West Palm Beach Division,
4 Federal Building, U.S. Courthouse, Palm Beach
5 County, State of Florida, on Tuesday, May 22,
6 2007.
7 Paula E. Angelocci, Certified Court
8 Reporter and Notary Public, State of Florida,
9 Official Reporting Service, LLC, 524 South Andrews
10 Avenue, Suite 302N, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
1 1 33301 , was authorized to and did report the sworn
12 testimony.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226648
3
1 (Witness enters the Grand Jury Room.)
2 THE FOREPERSON: You do solemnly swear
3 that the testimony you give will be the
4 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
5 truth, so help you God?
6 THE WITNESS: I do.
7 THE FOREPERSON: Thank you. Please be
8 seated.
9 EXAMINATION
10 BY MS.
11 Q Good afternoon, Special Agent.
12 A Good afternoon.
13 Q Could you remind the grand jury of your
14 name and with whom you are employed?
15 A It's
16 I'm a
17 special agent with the FBI here in West Palm Beach
18 and I work violent crimes.
19 Q Are you the case agent on Operation Leap
20
21
22 Q Okay. Before we get back to our review
23 of the draft proposed indictment, I know that a
24 question was raised regarding whether the grand
25 jury transcripts are being made available to
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226649
4
1 counsel for the defense, are they?
2 A No.
3 Q And is Mr. Epstein considered a high
4 flight risk by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's
5 Office?
6 A Yes, he is.
7 Q So is the status of the investigation in
8 terms of when an indictment might be returned
9 considered highly confidential?
10 A Yes.
1 1 Q And are there any personal relationships
12 between any members of the U.S. Attorney's Office
13 and counsel for Mr. Epstein?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And is that one of the reasons why we
16 have decided to use, In Re: Abbott, when referring
17 to this case?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Okay. Now we had left off just prior to
20 the beginning of the discussion of Jane Doe Number
21 Five. Could you tell the grand jury a little bit
22 about Jane Doe Number Five?
23 A Jane Doe Number Five is Felicia E. Her
24 date of birth is June 18, 1987. We have phone
25 activity that began with Felicia when she was 17
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226650
5
1 years old beginning in November of 2004, going
2 through to almost April, I guess, to the end of
3 March 2005.
4 We have contact, telephone contact
5 between with
6 approximately 70 phone calls in that time period
7 as well as approximately seven phone calls with
8 Adriana Ross regarding the setting up of
9 appointments to provide massages to Mr. Epstein.
10 Q Now did Felicia explain how she was
1 1 first introduced to Mr. Epstein?
12 A Yes, she did. Shasdy Il was the one
13 that approached Felicia. III'. also attends
14 Royal Palm Beach High School as well as our other
15 first four girls on the board, the Jane Does up
16 there.
17 Shasdy told her that she would need to
18 wear something sexy, that she would be providing
19 Mr. Epstein with a massage and that she would
20 receive $200, and if she was asked she should tell
21 Mr. Epstein that she was 18.
22 On the first massage that Felicia went
23 to Mr. Epstein's house, she removed her shirt at
24 his request and she performed the massage. She
25 was paid $300 for that massage.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226651
6
1 During that massage, she told Mr.
2 Epstein that she was 18 years of age. He asked
3 her age. They also discussed many things that
4 a was interested in.
I'll"
5 They talked about his ranch. They
6 talked about horses. They actually also talked
7 about cars. At one point later on, Mr. Epstein
8 let's her drive a brand new Lexus, test drive a
9 brand new Lexus. So those were some of her
10 interests and Mr. Epstein talked to her about
1 1 that.
12 Illilla told us that the massages became
13 more sexual in nature and she stated that she did
14 more than ten massages, but that she couldn't
15 quite put a number on how many massages she
16 provided to Mr. Epstein, but it was definitely
17 more than ten.
18 She was not -- when she was interviewed
19 by the Palm Beach Police Department, she did tell
20 them that it was more around five or six massages.
21 She stated that she minimized to the detectives
22 when they came to interview her.
23 They came to her house and her dad was
24 due home any time and what was foremost on her
25 mind was my dad is going to be here any minute.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226652
7
1 She cooperated.
2 She told them what had happened, but she
3 minimized it more in an effort that she just
4 wanted them to leave before her parents got home.
5 At this point, her parents were not aware of what
6 took place.
7 As the massages became more sexual in
8 nature, she describes that the first sexual
9 massage -- he always instructed her on what to do,
10 and on the first massage he had asked her to
1 1 remove her clothing.
12 She was down to her underwear at this
13 point. He asked her to straddle him while he laid
14 face up and continued to massage his chest and
15 pinch his nipples and rub his chest. He at that
16 point reached through her legs and masturbated.
17 On another occasion, she was completely
18 nude and she did several of the massages in the
19 nude for Mr. Epstein.
20 In this particular massage, she stated
21 that Mr. Epstein licked his hand and went down and
22 stroked her vagina and actually penetrated her
23 vagina.
24 She pulled away and he said that he
25 wanted to touch her and that he also wanted to
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226653
8
1 taste her. He stopped at that time, but then
2 before the massage was over, he digitally
3 penetrated her again.
4 He had used a back massager on her on at
5 least two occasions. She did not like that and
6 she told him that and he responded something to
7 the effect: What are you scared to have pleasure?
8 And she told him she didn't like it.
9 On the second to the last massage that
10 =.a gave Mr. Epstein, she was giving him a
11 massage and he took her into the bedroom and asked
12 her to get fully unclothed.
13 He actually took a phone call and told
14 her that she should get undressed and lay on the
15 bed completely naked. He just wanted to look at
16 her. He took his phone call.
17 After the phone call was over, he ended
18 up vaginally penetrating Felicia as well as
19 performing oral sex on She said that she
Illilla.
20 felt very dirty after that massage or after that
21 time and she had decided that the next massage
22 would be her last massage, that she did not want
23 to go back.
24 During the last massage she gave, she
25 kept looking at the clock. Mr. Epstein commented
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226654
9
1 and noticed that she was looking at the clock and
2 she made reference to that her boyfriend was
3 waiting and Mr. Epstein said that, you know, she
4 was ruining his massage and that if she didn' t
5 want to be here she should leave.
6 She told him at this time this would be
7 her last massage. She was paid anywhere Irom $300
8 to $600 during the time that she worked for Mr.
9 Epstein. It was who took her upstairs that
10 first time or took her upstairs and set up the
1 1 massage table.
12 She was given some gifts by Mr. Epstein
13 as well. She received bra and pantie sets Irom
14 him, 'a Secret bra and pantie sets. She
15 also received a book of poetry from Mr. Epstein.
16 She was Western Unioned a wire of $200
17 as a Christmas bonus to a from Mr. Epstein.
I'll"
18 Q How did Mia get to and from Mr.
19 Epstein's home?
20 A She had a vehicle that she would drive
21 if she didn't ride with one of the other girls.
22 If she was grounded and could not get to Mr.
23 Epstein's house, he would send a car for her.
24 There was a local taxi service and she
25 stated that on several occasions it was a Lincoln
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226655
10
1 Town Car that was sent and there was an individual
2 by the name of Dennis that she got to know pretty
3 well on the drives to and Irom Mr. Epstein's
4 house, but that even when she didn't have
5 transportation on those particular times, that a
6 car was sent for her to bring her to Mr. Epstein's
7 house.
8 Q Is there anything else that you wanted
9 to tell the grand jury about
Illilla?
10 A That's it.
11 Q All right. If I could direct you to the
12 proposed draft indictment, draft proposed
13 indictment, and ask you to look at the Overt Acts
14 that involve Jane Doe Number Five and
15 Kellen. Specifically Overt Acts 53, 58, 61 , 65,
16 69, 74, 81 , 91 , 98, 107, and 1 1 1.
17 Can you explain to the grand jury what
18 the evidence is supporting those Overt Acts?
19 A We have reviewed phone records that
20 indicates that there was telephonic contact
21 between and on those dates as
as
22 well as Is statements that Kellen was
23 arranging the appointments.
24 Q All right. And if I can refer you to
25 Overt Act Number 72, which states on or about
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226656
1 1
1 December 23, 2004, Defendant Epstein caused a
2 Western Union wire transfer order to be sent to
3 Jane Doe Number Five.
4 What evidence do you have to support
5 that?
6 A We have 's statements and we also
7 have the Western Union receipt showing that she
8 received that amount of money.
9 Q And those were in response to a subpoena
10 issued on behall of this grand jury?
1 1 A Yes.
12 If I could direct you to Overt Act
13 Number 82 involving Adriana Ross. What is the
14 basis for that Overt Act?
15 A Again, a review of the phone records
16
I rom Felicia and telephone indicate
17 that they had contact at that time.
18 4 And Overt Act Number 88 states that on
19 or about January 26, 2005, Defendant reviewed
20 a telephone message from Jane Doe Number Five.
21 What is the basis for that allegation?
22 A We have reviewed the message pads that
23 were recovered during the execution of the state
24 search warrant and recovered a message that
25
IIIIII a left for Adriana confirming an appointment
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226657
12
1 that I have a copy of that if you want me to read
2 that to you.
3 Sure.
4 A It's a message for Adriana dated January
5 26th, 2005, at 1 :30 p.m. It's from Felicia and it
6 says, in parentheses, you know the number, and it
7 says she is confirming 5:30 p.m.
8 Q All right. And then with respect to
9 Overt Acts Numbers 108 and 115 related to Ms.
10 Ross, what is the evidence supporting those Overt
11 Acts?
12 A Again, a review of the phone records of
13 Adriana Ross and a. We show that there was
14 telephonic contact on those dates.
15 Q And then if I could refer you to
16 substantive offense Count Number Nine, which is
17 the enticement charge. Can you just remind the
18 grand jury of the evidence supporting that
19 allegation?
20 A On or about those dates, a facility of
21 interstate commerce was used, specifically the
22 telephone between Kellen, and
23 Felicia.
24 Those telephones were used to set up and
25 arrange appointments for Mr. Epstein. As we
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226658
13
1 discussed earlier during the massage the sexual
2 activity that took place, the straddling of him by
where he began to masturbate between
3 I'll" a
4 his -- between her legs, excuse me, while she
5 continued to massage him and rub his nipples, him
6 asking her to become completely nude.
7 He digitally penetrated her, as we
8 talked about. He used a back massager on her on
9 at least two occasions, and he had sexual
10 intercourse with I'll" a as well as performed oral
1 1 sex on I'll" a.
12 He paid Illilia anywhere from $300 to
13 $600. He provided her with gifts, a poetry book,
14 IIIIII[a Secret underwear. It was Kellen
15 who had set up the room with the massage table and
16 set out the oils.
17 And then, of course, we did discuss the
18 private car that was sent to her when she wasn't
19 available to drive herself. He did pay a -- I
20 didn't mention this earlier -- he paid a truck
21 payment for her when she was short on money. So
22 that was another thing that Mr. Epstein provided
23 to Felicia, and she was 17 during all of this
24 activity.
25 Q All right. And if I could refer you to
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226659
14
1 Count Number 53, which is the sex trafficking
2 offense. Is the information that you just
3 summarized the same information that supports that
4 count?
5 A Yes. The only thing I wanted to tell
6 you regarding her age, she told Mr. Epstein that
7 she was 18 on the lirst visit. A couple of visits
8 later they discussed her birthday. They were
9 talking about her birthday and her plans for her
10 birthday and Mr. Epstein asked her -- said
1 1 something to the effect like: You are going to be
12 18? And she said yes.
13 And he said: So you are not 18? She
14 laughed and said no and they kind of laughed and
15 they continued on with the massage. So Mr.
16 Epstein was aware through that conversation that
17 had not yet turned 18.
18 Q All right.
19 MS. VILLAFANA: Are there any questions
20 regarding Illilla before we continue? All
21 right. Let's turn now to Jane Doe Number
22 Six.
23 THE WITNESS: Did we do the count, the
24 traveling count?
25 MS. No, we are not going to
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226660
15
1 do those today.
2 THE WITNESS: Okay.
3 BY MS.
4 Q And if you could tell us Jane Doe Number
5 Six's first name and her date of birth?
6 A Jane Doe Number Six is IIIIIIIIII H. She
7 also attended Royal Palm Beach High School and her
8 date of birth is December 30, 1986.
9 Q How did Jane Doe Number Six come to be
10 introduced to Mr. Epstein?
1 1 A Shasdy I also contacted -- or told
12 about providing massages to Mr. Epstein. She told
13 Alex -- which I'm going to refer to her as Alex.
14 That's what she goes by, but her name is
15 Alexandra. That he wanted cute girls to give him
16 massages and that he would pay $200.
17 We had have contact starting with
18 in July of 2000 between and that
IMI
19 phone contact continues until September 2005.
20 Between this time period, we have over 200 --
21 approximately 225 calls between Kellen and
22
23 During Alex's first massage, Shasdy
24 brought ■ over there and was paid $200 by Mr.
25 Epstein. She left. performed the first
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226661
16
1 massage topless. He asked her to take her skirt
2 and her shirt ofl.
3 She said no at first and later in the
4 massage, the way puts it, is that he talked
5 her into it and she removed her shirt, which she
6 was not wearing a bra at the time.
7 Mr. Epstein fondled her breasts. He
8 asked her to remove her panties and she said no.
9 He masturbated and as soon as he ejaculated, the
10 massage was over. She was paid $200 for that.
1 1 She, at that point, she did start
12 working for Epstein on a regular basis. She
13 indicated that she had been there hundreds of
14 times over this time period.
15 She told us -- and I'm going to read a
16 quote to you that she said to me or said to not to
17 me but to law enforcement -- she said -- and this
18 is referring to after the first time that she went
19 there.
20 She said I first told him that i had a
21 problem with it, what happened the first time,
22 but $200 for 45 minutes that was a lot for a
23 16 -year -old girl making six bucks an hour.
24 Now that was a statement she made to law
25 enforcement. Going through her phone records and
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226662
17
1 during her interview with law enforcement, she
2 goes back and forth on whether she is 16 or 17.
3 It's now over a year since she started
4 working -- a year and a half since she started
5 working for Mr. Epstein and going back and trying
6 to retrace her age, she did say that, but we
7 believe at that time she was 17 due to the phone
8 contact.
9 So we are not sure when that first
10 massage started, but the phone contact with
1 1 Kellen began in July of '04 when she would have
12 been 17.
13 Q And just to be clear, during that
14 interview with law enforcement, did Alex have
15 access to her phone records?
16 A No.
17 Q And the interviewing officer also didn't
18 have access to those records, correct?
19 A No.
20 Q So she was just saying she couldn't
21 remember if she was 16 or 17 at the time?
22 A Right.
23 As I said, she became kind of a regular.
24 He increased her pay to $300 to $400 as long as he
25 could touch her. She stated that the massages
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226663
18
1 would progress over time and at first she would
2 not take off her panties, then she did.
3 She performed the massages naked. He
4 would rub Alex's vagina. He also digitally
5 penetrated He performed oral sex on
6 He would masturbate while rubbing himself on
7 s breasts.
8 Later in the times that was
9 performing the massages, he requested that she
10 become sexually involved with
11 Mr. Epstein asked to perform oral sex on
12 and refused and Mr. Epstein told her
13 that it she was toperform oral sex on
14 five minutes, he would give her another $200. So
15 she did.
16 Alex and engaged in sexual
17 activity less than live times. Mr. Epstein would
18 also partake in that sexual activity as well. On
19 one occasion with all three of them, as we had
20 mentioned earlier in a grand jury session,
21 the massage was over and ■ was standing up near
22 the massage table and Mr. Epstein bent her face
23 down and held her head and penetrated Alex's
24 vagina.
25 I think she described it as that he went
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226664
19
1 inside her four or five times with his penis and
2 she had a rule with Mr. Epstein that at lirst was
3 that he would not ever penetrate her with any
4 object, anything.
5 And when he first digitally penetrated
6 her on the first time, she, you know, asked him
7 why he was doing that. He said: Oh, I thought we
8 had done this before.
9 And later he continues to digitally
10 penetrate her. On this occasion, she said: What
11 are you doing? And he said that he just wanted
12 to see this.
13 Q So at the time that that occurred, she
14 still had a rule with him, but the rule was that
15 he would not penetrate her vagina with his penis?
16 A Right.
17 And Mr. Epstein gave -- we'll talk
18 about several gifts. One of the gifts that Mr.
19 Epstein gave was a 2005 Dodge Neon. It only had
20 seven miles on it.
21 believes that that car was bought
22
for her. We have reason to believe it was most
23 likely rented and we are determining that right
24 now, but he gave her this.
25 It only had seven miles and she gave
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226665
20
1 that back to him before she got out of high
2 school. And she said, and this is her quote: It
3 got too sticky for me. He wanted more than I was
4 willing to give.
5 She stated that Epstein requested her to
6 have sex with him multiple times and also wanted
7 him to -- wanted her to perform oral sex on him
8 and she refused to do that, and Mr. Epstein knew
9 that that was not going to happen.
10 And, again, that's one of the reasons
11 why she ended up giving back the car because it
12 just was getting a little bit, as she referred to,
13 sticky for her.
14 After that occasion, where he did
15 penetrate her vagina, he paid her $1 ,000 after
16 that. Some of the gifts that she received other
17 than the car, she describes that as 'a
a
18 Secret underwear and a bra and pantie set she
19 received.
20 She received Christmas bonuses, movie
21 tickets, VIP show tickets. She went to the David
22 Copperfield show. She met with him. She went to
23 the after party. She received a Louis Vuitton
24 bag.
25 was in a play at her high school
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226666
21
and Mr. Epstein sent her a dozen roses -- or two
2 dozen roses, I believe, to her high school, had
3 them delivered to her high school while she was
4 performing at this play.
5 He also lor her 18th birthday, he Ilew
6 her to New York for her 18th birthday, and she was
7 flown up there on her birthday and that was done
8 because Mr. Epstein didn't want to have to deal
9 with the parental consent needed to fly somebody
10 under the age of 18 to New York.
1 1 So on her 18th birthday with his
12 funding, she flew to New York. She received show
13 tickets to the Phantom of the Opera. Epstein was
14 not present in New York at this time. He was
15 called away and was not there.
16 So she does have friends in New York and
17 she stayed with those friends and attended the
18 show that Mr. Epstein had purchased those tickets
19 for. The other thing about is she said that
20 she would get paid every time she would go over
21 there and she said she feels like she went over
22 there hundreds of times.
23 She said that sometimes he would just
24 have her naked watching TV or reading a book. He
25 would sometimes just ask her to lay with him
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226667
22
1 naked. She was still always paid and he would
2 invite her over for breakfast.
3 He would invite her to dinner and
4 sometimes just to use the pool, but that she was
5 always paid for coming over there.
6 Q Let me ask about a couple of other
7 things. You mentioned the specific conversation
8 about she could only fly up on her 18th birthday
9 so that he wouldn't have to get parental consent
10 for her flight?
1 1 A Yes.
12 Q And you mentioned the delivery of the
13 roses to the high school. In addition to those,
14 were other events that occurred that should have
15 led Mr. Epstein or probably did lead Mr. Epstein
16 to know that she was under the age of 18?
17 A Yes. One of the things that told
18 me is that she believed she stayed with him so
19 long because she believed that he was going to
20 help her get into New York University, NYU.
21 She provided him on multiple occasions
22 paperwork. One being her transcript. Trying to,
23 you know, do what she could to keep her grades up,
24 do what she could in the hopes that Mr. Epstein
25 with his influence residing in New York was going
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226668
23
1 to be able to get her into NYU.
2 That again is one of the reasons why she
3 stayed because she felt that if she held on for
4 so long hoping that this dream would come true.
5 She is currently attending Florida State
6 University and doing very well.
7 Q Do we have any other documentation of
8 receiving payments from someone who worked
9 for Mr. Epstein?
10 A We have Janusz Banasiak. It was a house
1 1 manager I or Mr. Epstein and we were able to get
12 his petty cash receipts and in there is a payment
13 that he paid out of his funds to Alex.
14 Q Now was ever shown any photo
15 lineup?
16 A Yes, she was.
17 Q And was she able to identify any of the
18 defendants?
19 A She fied =Ma
20 Q And was that the photo array that was
21 shown to her?
22 A Yes, it was.
23 Q Was are counsel for the
24 defendants aware of s allegations against Mr.
25 Epstein?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226669
24
1 A Yes.
2 Q And have they attempted to discredit
3 her?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And is one of the bases for their
6 attempt to discredit her the fact that she didn't
7 appear before the State Grand Jury?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Are you aware of whether or not was
10 ever subpoenaed to appear before the State Grand
11 Jury?
12 A There was a subpoena issued to her.
13 not sure iI she received that. Either she
14 received it the day before or she didn't receive
15 it at all and I would need to check my notes and
16 she is up in Tallahassee, mind you.
17 So she was either served the day before
18 that grand jury convened or she never received it
19 and I would need to check with probably the
20 detective for sure on that.
21 Q Okay. Let's talk about the allegations
22 related to Jane Doe Number Six in the proposed
23 indictment. If I could refer you to Overt Acts
24 Numbers 21 , 26, 34, 38, 49, 51 , 52, 55, 62, 68,
25 and 73.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226670
25
1 If you could tell the grand jury what
2 the evidence is that supports those allegations?
3 A Review of those phone records on those
4 dates indicate that there was telephonic contact
5 between and as well as
6 statements that she was called by prior to
7 and while Mr. Epstein was in town.
8 Q All right. And if I could refer you to
9 Overt Act Number 57, which states on or about
10 December 4, 2004, Defendant Kellen provided a
11 written message to Defendant Epstein regarding
12 Jane Doe Number Six and Jane Doe Number Seven.
13 Could you tell the grand jury about
14 that?
15 A We have reviewed message pads that,
16 again, were obtained in the execution of a state
17 search warrant that indicates that left a
18 message for Mr. Epstein regarding Alex and
19 Britnay, who is Jane Doe Number Seven, and I have
20 that here. If I can read it to you?
21 Q Sure.
22 A For Jeffrey, dated 12-4-2004. The time
23 is 2:55 p.m. It's from y would like
24 to work at 4 p.m. if possible. In parentheses,
25 is scheduled for 5:00 today.
The movie is at
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVIC
E, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226671
26
1 7:30.
2 Q Okay. And if I could refer you to Count
3 Number Ten, and if you could summarize for the
4 grand jury -- first, if you could refer to the
S dates contained in that count, on July 15th, 2004,
6 until December 29th, 2004, what was the
7 significance of those dates?
8 A This would be the time period that
9 is still under the age of 18.
10 Q That she was receiving phone calls from
1 1 someone who worked for Mr. Epstein?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Okay. And then if you could just
14 summarize the remainder of the evidence according
15 to that count?
16 A Okay. On or about those dates a
17 facility of interstate commerce was used,
18 specifically the telephone, specifically
19 telephones were utilized to
n.
20 set up and arrange appointments for Mr. Epstei
21 During the massages, Epstein fondled
s breasts. Epstein used the back massager
22
s vagina. Epstein
23 and vibrator directly on
24 performed oral sex on and Epstein penetrated
25 Alex's vagina with his penis.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226672
27
1 Mr. Epstein introduced Marcinkova
2 into the sexual activity with . and
3 engaged in sexual activity while Epstein
4 watched and masturbated.
5 Epstein asked to perform oral sex
6 on and when she refused he offered her $200
7 for five minutes. complied. There were
8 di erent sex toys used on
I III/ including a
9 strap-on dildo that used.
10 Epstein paid $200 up to $1 ,000
11 depending on the sexual activity that took place.
12 Kellen had taken upstairs. She set up
13 for the massage.
14 Epstein paid for a trip to New York for
15 her 18th birthday, her Phantom of the Opera
16 tickets. He rented or provided a car to Alex.
17 He delivered roses to her high school, gave her a
18 Louis Vuitton bag, gave her a ia Secret bra
19 and pantie set.
20 He also provided her with a bathing suit
21 on a return trip he had to Brazil. He told her
22 that he was going to help her get into New York
23 University. She believed that was the case. She
24 provided him with her high school transcript and
25 she was 17 at the time.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVIC
E, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226673
28
1 Q And with respect to Count Number 54, is
2 that the same evidence that supports that count?
3 A Yes, it does.
4 Q Okay. Before we go on, know that you
I
5 mentioned with respect to both Jane Doe Number
6 Five and Jane Doe Number Six that they were
7 introduced to Mr. Epstein by Shasdy IF
8 Is Shasdy another Jane Doe who will be
9 discussed at a later time?
10 A Yes.
11 MS. Any questions about Jane
12 Doe Number Six?
13 Yes.
14 A GRAND JUROR: I don't know if I'm
15 allowed to ask this, and you don't have to
16 answer it, but how did the parents do they
17 ask where she got the car and a Louis Vuitton
18 purse? I mean, how do they not know anything
19 like a car?
20 BY MS.
you -- have you interviewed s
21 Q Did
22 parents?
23 A No.
24 MS. Yes.
A GRAND JUROR: My question is that I
25
E, LLC
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVIC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226674
29
1 noticed you are skipping all the travel. Is
2 that something that you are going to discuss?
3 MS. In the future. As I
4 mentioned before, there's -- that question
5 is pending and I want to get a definitive
6 answer before we go through that.
7 A GRAND JUROR: I must have missed that.
8 A GRAND JUROR: I don't see a Count 54
on this.
10 A GRAND JUROR: Because it is on the
1 1 next page.
12 A GRAND JUROR: Okay. I'm sorry. Thank
13 you.
14 THE WITNESS: Just to answer a question.
15 The Palm Beach Police Department -- did
16 tell the Palm Beach Police Department that
17 her mother believed that she worked there,
18 and I would need to go back and check, but I
19 believe that she worked there as a -- I want
20 to say like an assistant or answered the
21 phones or something like that.
22 And at one point, her mother thought
23 there might have been more going on and
24 actually ■ did end going over there for a
25 time period, but then she did resume later.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226675
30
1 A GRAND JUROR: Okay.
2 MS. Any other questions?
3 Okay.
4 BY MS.
5 And we will turn to Jane Doe Number
6 Seven. Could you tell the grand jury the first
7 name of Jane Doe Number Seven and her date of
8 birth?
9 A Jane Doe Number Seven is and
10 her date of birth is
1 1 Q How did Britnay come to go to Mr.
12 Epstein's house?
13 y worked at the mall, and that
14 through working at the mall, and
15 Jane Doe Number Six told that she could
16 make extra money by provi ing a massage to Mr.
17 Epstein.
18 Alex told her that she may have to be
19 naked for this massage, but if she didn't want to
20 she didn't have to. We have the contact, the
21 telephonic contact between Kellen and
22 y beginning in July 2004 and through
23 November of 2005.
24 There is approximately 100 calls between
25 and y B. and there is around
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226676
31
1 seven calls, approximately seven calls to
2 in between and Britnay B. and approximately
3
eight calls between Adriana Ross and y.
4 y stated that she went about 15
5 times to Mr. Epstein's house. y is the
6 first Jane Doe we have talked about that goes to
7 Lake Worth High School and does not attend Royal
8 Palm Beach High School.
9 On 's first massage, took
10 Britnay upstairs for the first massage and set up
1 1 the room. Epstein instructed to leave the
12 room. During the massage, Epstein asked Britnay
13 to remove her clothing. She removed only her
14 shirt.
15 y described Epstein as being --
16 she described him as a respective guy, who would
17 converse with her. She said that they discussed
18 different life issues such as where y wanted
19 to attend college in the future.
20 He also gave her advice. She didn't
21 have the best credit, so he gave her advice on her
22 credit. He also gives her advice on dealing with
23 her parents. She performed this massage and she
24 was paid $200 or the massage.
25 y told us that as the massages
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226677
32
and become
1 continued, they would then progress
2 more sexual. Epstein would try to go further and
3 l urther with
the third massage, Britnay had
4 By
thing. She was
5 completely removed all of her clo
respect. Epstein
6 completely nude at Mr. Epstein's
7 would fondle
He
la
rubbed
s breasts.
her vagina. He did not
8
penetrate -- did not digitally penetrate her, but
9
the outside. She
10 did stroke and rub her vagina on
o
11 would tell him no on occasions and she would als
d from places that
12 take his hand and remove his han
13 she did not want him to touch.
14 Mr. Epstein did use a massager directly
's vagina while he continued to
15 on
On at least two
16 masturbate during these massages.
17 occasions, Mr. Epstein at Mr. Epstein's
direction, assisted y in giving the
18
19 massage.
ls
20 And on -- the first time Britnay tel
was setting up the room and she
21 us that
rted to undress.
22 remained in the room and sta
23 was surprised.
d this was
24 She was never asked or tol
way it
25 going to happen. This is just kind of the
VICE, LLC
OFFICIAL REPORTING SER
(954) 467-82 04
EFTA00226678
33
1 went. and y both massage Mr. Epstein.
2 and Epstein began performing sexual acts in
3 front of MI
4 Epstein used a massager on
M
5 vagina in front of y as well as they both
6 performed oral sex in front of y on each
7 other. also touched 's breasts.
She touched her -- touched
9 vagina. She took 's hand and placed it on
10 her vagina and y pulled it back, pulled It
11 away.
12 did use the massager directly on
13 's vagina. Some of the gifts that Britnay
14 received, she did receive also a bathing suit,
15 which we have from Mr. Epstein's Brazilian trip.
16 She received four tickets for her 18th
17 birthday. Mr. Epstein gave her David Copperfield
18 tickets, and on two occasions Mr. Epstein and
19 Kellen, they wired money to y.
20 In June of 2005, on senior
21 trip, her senior graduation trip, ey went to
22 Cancun, Mexico. She ran out of money and they
23 sent her -- wired her, Western Unioned her $350,
24 and then she took a trip in July of '05 to San
25 Diego, California, and she also received $200 by
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE,
([Phone Redacted]
LLC
EFTA00226679
34
1 Western Union.
2 Q All right.
3 MS. Anything you want to ask
before we go o e Overt Acts? No. All
4
5 right.
6 BY MS.
7 Q If I could refer you first to Overt Act
8 Number 23, which says on July 16th, 2004,
caused Jane Doe Number Six to
9 Defendant
10 make one or more telephone calls to a telephone
11 used by Jane Doe Number Seven.
12 Could you explain what the evidence is
13 supporting that?
14 A Yes. A review of phone records from
s phone and y B. indicated they had
15
16 telephonic contact at that time.
17 Q And that was following a telephone
Kellen and Jane Doe Number
18 contact between
19 Six?
20 A Yes, it was.
21 Q All right. And is that consistent with
Number Seven told you about how she
22 what Jane Doe
was recruited to go to Mr. Epstein's house?
23
24 A Yes.
Acts 27, 32,
25 Q Now with respect to Overt
SERVICE, LLC
OFFICIAL REPORTING
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226680
35
1 39, 41 , 44, 45, 66, 75, 85, 89, and 90, what is
2 the evidence related to those Overt Acts?
3 A Can we skip 89?
4 Q Oh, yes. Let's skip 89.
5 A A review of the phone records indicate
6 that there was telephonic contact between y
7 and on those specific dates as well
8 as the statements of y that Kellen
9 would call her in advance or call her while Mr.
10 Epstein was in town.
11 Q All right. And those records show that
12 the phone calls originated with Kellen's
13 telephone?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Now if I could direct you to Overt Act
16 Number 57, which says on December 4, 2004,
17 Defendant Kellen provided a written message to
18 Defendant Epstein regarding Jane Doe Number Six
19 and Jane Doe Number Seven.
20 Is that the phone message that you
21 mentioned earlier today?
22 A Yes, it is.
23 Q Now we skipped Overt Act Number 89, and
24 can you tell the grand jury what the evidence is
25 related to Overt Act Number 89?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226681
36
A That would be a review of the phone
1
2 records from y B. as well as a review of the
3 phone records from that there was
4 telephonic contact on that day.
Q From Ms. Ross to 's telephone?
5
6 A Yes.
Q And then Overt Act Number 92, can you
7
d to that?
8 tell us what the evidence is relate
9 A That is on that day a review of their
phone records of phone records
10
1 1 and y B. indicates that there was telephonic
t date.
12 contact between the two of them on tha
Now if I could refer you to Count Number
13 Q
grand jury
14 11 , and if you could summarize for the
t count?
15 what the evidence is related to tha
ility of
16 A On or about these dates, a fac
specifically the
17 interstate commerce was used,
18 telephone, between
and B.
19 1.1.111,
to set up and
20 These phones were utilized
for Mr. Epstein.
21 arrange massage appointments
n asked y to
22 During the massages, Epstei
23 remove her clothing.
massage, y
Starting with the third
24
's
25 was completely nude and Epstein touched
E, LLC
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVIC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226682
37
1 breasts. He stroked her vagina. He used a back
2 massager on 's vagina. He masturbated
3 during the massages.
4 On at least two occasions Epstein
5 involved into the sexual
MEIME
6 activity. stroked 's vagina and used
7 the massager on s vagina.
8 also placed 's hand on her
9 vagina, which y pulled back. Epstein paid
10 y $200 on each these occasions. Epstein
1 1 also provided her with a bathing suit, lour
12 tickets to see David Copperfield on her 18th
13 birthday, provided those tickets for her 18th
14 birthday.
15 Epstein and Western Unioned
16 Britnay on at least two occasions and Epstein
17 provided y with advice dealing with her bad
18 credit, with her parents, and her plans for going
19 to college, and Britnay was 17 when all this
20 activity took place.
21 Q Okay. So the dates that appear in Count
22 11 run through the day before her 18th birthday,
23 correct?
24 A Yes, they do.
25 Q Now with respect to Count Number 55, is
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226683
38
1 that the same evidence that relates to the sex
2 trafficking charge?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Okay. And the date ranges between up
5 until she turns 18?
6 A Yes, it is.
7 Q All right.
8 MS. VILLAFANA: Any questions about Jane
9 Doe Number Seven? All right. We'll go on to
10 Jane Doe Number Eight.
11 BY MS. VILLAFANA:
12 Q And if you could tell the grand jury
13 Jane Doe's first name and her date of birth?
14 A Jane Doe Number Eight is D. She
15 was born October 10, 1987. She attended Royal
16 Palm Beach High School and she had been to Mr.
17 Epstein's house approximately 15 times.
18 Q And who first introduced I'll" to Mr.
19 Epstein?
20 A H., Jane Doe Number Six.
21 Q And tell us how that contact began.
22 A Alex told Ashley that she could make
23 $200 if she provided Mr. Epstein with a massage.
24 She told her that she would have to take off her
25 clothes, but that she could keep her underwear on.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226684
39
1 , on the first massage, we have -- I guess I
2 should tell you, we have phone contact between
3 and starting February 25,
4 2005, and that phone contact continues through
5 October of 2005.
6 We have over 50 calls between
7 Kellen and D, and we have approximately 25
8 calls between and On that
9 first massage, brought and set up the
10 massage table. left the room.
11 Shortly after that, Mr. Epstein entered
12 wearing only a towel. massaged Mr.
13 Epstein's leg and back Mr. Epstein masturdated
14 during this massage.
15 I should tell you that told us
16 that -- told law enforcement, that he has the
17 girls take off their clothes, and in this massage
18 she did remove her clothing down to her underwear.
19 She kept her underwear on.
20 He would touch her breasts and he would
21 also grab her buttock while he was masturbating.
22 The massages became more sexual. Mr. Epstein used
23 a massager on s vagina, over her panties,
24 and told us that on one or two occasions
25 she was completely nude and he did use the
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226685
40
1 massager directly on her vagina.
2 On one of the times that she was
3 completely nude, Mr. Epstein had cracked Ashley's
4 back before and she -- Epstein told to lay
IIIIII
5 down and that he was going to crack her back like
6 he had done before.
7 When she laid down, Mr. Epstein
8 performed sexual intercourse on Ashley.
9 stated that he did pull out and ejaculated outside
10 of her vagina. He gave her an extra 100, $150.
11 She had made $200 up to this point, so it would be
12 300, $350 that Mr. Epstein paid her.
13 On another occasion, was brought
14 into the massage. and Mr. Epstein engaged
15 in sexual acts while would continue to
16 massage Mr. Epstein.
17 Epstein did ask Nadia and Ashley to kiss
and he watched as they touched each other. ,
18
19 I guess, touched -- I should say touched
20 s breasts and continued to touch Mr.
21 Epstein as well as this all went on.
22 As tar as the gifts that Mr. Epstein
provided to , he gave her a photography book
23 IIIIII
24 as well as a digital camera. told us that
25 actually gave her the camera, but it was per
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226686
41
1 Mr. Epstein's instructions. She was 17 at the
2 time all this activity occurred.
3 Q And what did say about Mr.
4 Epstein's knowledge of her age?
5 A She told Mr. Epstein how old she was.
6 She told him that she was 17.
7 Q Now was interviewed shortly after
8 the activity ended, correct?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Do you remember the approximate date
1 1 when Mr. Epstein left Palm Beach County and has
12 returned only for court appearances?
13 A I believe it was October 6th. It was
14 the beginning of October was the last time we have
15 him or when he left the area.
16 Q And was interviewed by the police
17 shortly after that time?
18 A Yes, she was interviewed on November 8.
19 Q And during that interview, did she
20 explain when the last time was when she had seen
21 Mr. Epstein?
22 A She had said shortly before her
23 birthday.
24 Q And she said it was actually the first
25 week in October?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226687
42
1 A Yes.
2 Q Now was later called to appear
3 before the State Grand Jury?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And during that testimony, did she --
6 did she confuse the last day that she saw Mr.
7 Epstein?
8 A Yes. She stated -- and this was done
9 believe in July of '06, so this would have been
10 over a year and some months. She did state that
11 the last time she saw Mr. Epstein was the day
12 before her birthday and that is when the sexual
13 intercourse took place.
14 • Okay. So she thought it was the day
5 before her birthday, but based on her earlier
16 statement and the records that we have, we know it
17 was a few days before her birthday?
18 A The first week of October.
19 Q Okay.
20 I S. Let's -- actually,
mind
21 before we go to the Overt Acts, do you
22 if I ask the agent a question outside? I
23 think I caught another error. Excuse us for
24 a moment.
25 (Ms. Iowa and the witness exit the
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226688
43
1 Grand Jury Room.)
2 (Ms. a and the witness enter the
IIIIIIIIn
3 Grand Jury Room.)
4 MS. There is a discrepancy
5 in Overt Act Number 138. The chart that I
6 provided to you says -- has the name Ross as
7 the relevant defendant and in the indictment
8 So we are trying to confirm
9 who the right caller was.
10 A GRAND JUROR: Can I ask a question?
11 MS. Sure.
12 A GRAND JUROR: You had said that he had
13 not been in Florida?
14 MS. VILLAFANA: Uh-huh.
15 A GRAND JUROR: How do they know that he
16 has not come into Florida?
17 MS. Okay. We can address
18 that wither-'et the agent.
19 A GRAND JUROR: Could I ask a question?
20 MS. Sure.
21 A GRAND JUROR: Is there any way that he
22 might have been filming this? Does anybody
23 know about it, I mean, you know?
24 MS. Okay. We will answer
25 those after we finish going through these
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226689
44
1 items.
2 A GRAND JUROR: I knew there was a
3 reason you were hauling all those records
4 back and forth.
5 A GRAND JUROR: After the case is over,
6 how long do you actually have to keep all
7 that?
8 MS. This is all on the
9 record.
10 A GRAND JUROR: Yeah. It's curiosity.
11 MS. Okay. All right.
12
13 Q So from your review of the phone
14 records, Special Agent 1, Overt Act
15 Number 138 relates to Kellen?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Okay. All right. Now let's run through
18 Overt Acts 110, 128, 133, 136, 138, 139, 141 , 142,
19 145, 152, 154, and 156.
20 Could you let the grand jury know what
21 the evidence is supporting those Overt Acts?
22 A A review of the phone records indicate
23 on those dates there was telephonic contact
24 between the Kellen and D. as well as
statements that Kellen called her
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226690
45
1 and in advance as to when Mr. Epstein was in town
2 to set up appointments.
3 Q And if you could look at Overt Acts 124,
4 146, and '49.
5 A A review of phone records between
6 Adriana Ross and D. indicates there was
7 telephonic phone contact on those dates.
Q Phone calls originating with
9 ending with D.?
10 A Yes.
1 1 Q And Overt Act Number 147?
12 A Overt Act 147, a review of the phone
13 records indicate that there was telephonic contact
14 between and IIIIII D. on that
15 date as well.
16 Q And then Overt Act Number 150, says that
17 on September 8, 2005, Defendant Ross received a
18 telephone call from Jane Doe Number Eight, and
19 what is the evidence related to that?
20 A The evidence on that date is that a
21 review of those phone records indicates that
22 contacted
23 Q So with respect to that one, the phone
24 call originated with as opposed to being
25 with Ross?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226691
46
1 A Yes.
2 Q Okay. Now if you could turn to Count
3 Number 12 and summarize for the grand jury the
4 evidence supporting that charge of the enticement
5 of a minor?
6 A On or about these dates, a facility of
7 interstate commerce was used, specifically the
8 t elephone, specifically Kellen, Adriana
9 Ross, , and D., phones were
10 utilized to set and arrange massages, massage
11 appointments for Mr. Epstein.
12 During the massages, Epstein would ask
13 Ashley to remove her clothing. She would perform
14 the massages either in her underwear or completely
15 nude. Epstein masturbated while Ashley performed
16 these massages.
17 Epstein used a massager on
18 vagina with her panties on and with them off.
19 Epstein had intercourse with IIIIII. He
20 e jaculated outside her vagina.
21 On one occasion, Epstein brought
22 Marcinkova into the sexual activity, introduced
23 into the sexual activity. They performed
24 sex acts on each other, that being
25 and Jeffrey Epstein, in front of
OFFICIAL. REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226692
47
1 , and she continued to massage Mr. Epstein.
2 At Mr. Epstein's request, and
3 IIIIII did kiss as well as touched Ashley's
4 breasts. Epstein paid 200 to 300 to $350 to
5 and that depended on the sexual activity.
6 Epstein gave a book on
7 photography as well as a digital camera provided
8 to her by as well as bra and underwear sets,
9 and told Mr. Epstein that she was 17 years
10 of age.
11 Q All right. And is that the same
12 evidence with respect to Count Number 56?
13 A Yes, it is.
14 Q Okay.
15 MS. Before we go to those
16 other two questions that were posed, are
17 there any questions that relates to Jane Doe
18 Number Eight?
19 Yes, sir.
20 A GRAND JUROR: Is there any explanation
21 from any of the girls about the number of
22 calls versus the number of times they say
23 they went there?
24 MS. I'm sorry. Say it one
25 more time.
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226693
48
1 A GRAND JUROR: The number of times they
2 went to visit versus the number of phone
3 calls. There seems to be a big diflerence.
4 THE WITNESS: Yes. There's a lot of
5 phone calls and we have phone calls showing
6 up prior to his arrival and during his
7 arrival and some of the phone calls are
8 lengthy and some of them are, you know,
9 seconds.
10 So either maybe they didn't get through.
11 We are looking at a cell phone bill and
12 getting those totals from looking at the cell
13 phone bill and the calls just vary in time
14 length and, you know, the only explanation I
15 guess, you know, would be -- and that's just
16 me giving you my opinion -- is that, you
17 know, either they didn't reach each other, so
18 they would continue to call back and forth.
19 There was a lot of calls between these
20 teenage girls or these adolescent girls as
21 well as the phone activity between and
22 and Adriana with the girls.
23 BY MS. VILLAFANA:
24 Q All right. And also Special Agent
25 1, I know that you testified about this
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226694
49
1 earlier in terms of the tendency of victims of
2 this type of offense to minimize the number of
3 visits, for example, minimize the conduct that
4 they engaged in?
5 A That is true as well.
6 Q So it is possible that the girls went
7 more than five times or ten times?
8 A Yes. I mean, it's difficult to try to
9 get them to tell you an exact number and that's
10 why we have approximated, and, again, they have
1 1 minimized either with local law enforcement and
12 now when we go back either through time or just
13 being able to -- you know, the approach, they have
14 been able to tell us a little more of what took
15 place.
16 Again, stated she went hundreds of
17 times. Can we put her down to a number? Two
18 hundred and twenty-five phone calls. You know, we
19 just know that she went a lot of times.
20 You can look at the phone activity of
21 seeing the phone calls that are made prior to his
22 arrival and during his arrival to try to gage when
23 they were there.
24 MS. VILLAFANA: All right. Any other
25 questions related to Jane Doe Number Eight?
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226695
50
1 Okay.
2 BY MS. •
•
3 Q Then we have two questions that were
4 raised earlier. One of which was whether there is
5 any evidence to suggest that Mr. Epstein filmed
6 any of these encounters?
7 A We don't have any evidence at this time.
8 Some of girls were asked that question but there's
9 no evidence to show that he did or indicate that
10 he did.
11 Q All right. And then the second one was
12 we had talked earlier about Mr. Epstein leaving
13 Florida and not returning. What evidence do you
14 have regarding where Mr. Epstein has been since
15 October of 2005?
16 A He has -- and I may have misspoke if I
17 said he has not ever come back. He has come back
18 because of the state charges he has faced. He has
19 had to come into Palm Beach County for that.
20 We do not believe that he has been here
21 other than that since the investigation broke in
22 October of '05, other than having to appear before
23 the state charges.
24 We know where Mr. Epstein resides and we
25 have a partner, ICE, Immigration and Customs
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226696
51
1 Enforcement, who can -- is helping us monitor his
2 plane activity, and, although, we were not privy
3 to all of his domestic flights when he comes in
4 and out of the country, we are alerted to that.
5 Q And you mentioned earlier that you
6 interviewed Janusz Banasiak, correct?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Who currently serves in what position of
9 Mr. Epstein?
10 A He is currently the house manager for
1 1 Mr. Epstein and maintains the property over in
12 Palm Beach.
13 Q And what did he tell you about Mr.
14 Epstein?
15 A He also said that Mr. Epstein has not
16 been back.
17 Q Okay.
18 MR. Any other questions?
19 All right. You guys get a break next. All
20 right. We will see you I will be out of
21 town next week and I will probably see you
22 the week after that.
23 (Witness was excused.)
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORTING SERVICE,
LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226697
52
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2
3 I, Paula E. Angelocci, Certified Court
4 Reporter and Notary Public, do certify that the
5 transcript is a true and correct transcription of
6 my stenotype notes of the testimony of
7 SPECIAL AGENT E. NESBITT taken before
the Federal Grand Jury, West Palm Beach, Florida.
9
PAULA E. ANGEjICCI, CSR #4869
10 Certified Cou Reporter
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 .
25
OFFICIAL. REPORTING SERVICE, LLC
([Phone Redacted]
EFTA00226698
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 3340!
([Phone Redacted]
Facsimile: ([Phone Redacted]
June 7, 2007
D LIVERY BY HAND
Miss
Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights
Dear
Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense,
you have a number of rights. Those rights arc:
(I) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding
involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.
(3) The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court
determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other
portions of a proceeding.
(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court
involving release, plea, or sentencing.
(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case.
(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and
privacy.
Members of the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies,
including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that
these
rights are protected. If you have an concen i r this regard, please feel free to contact me
at [Phone Redacted], or Special Agen from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at [Phone Redacted]. You also can con ac a ustice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in
Washington, D.C. at [Phone Redacted]. That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov.
You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights listed above and,
if you
believe that the rights set forth above arc being violated, you have the right to petition
the Court for
relief.
Exhibit 30
EFTA00226699
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
([Phone Redacted]
Facsimile: ([Phone Redacted]
June 7, 2007
DELIVERY BY HAND
Miss
Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights
Dearan
Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense,
you have a number of rights. Those rights are:
The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding
involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.
The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court
determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other
portions of a proceeding.
(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court
involving release, plea, or sentencing.
(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case.
(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and
privacy.
Members of the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies,
including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these
rights are protected. If you have an concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at [Phone Redacted], or Special Agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at [Phone Redacted]. You also can contact the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in
Washington, D.C. at [Phone Redacted]. That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov.
You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights listed above and, if you
believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for
relief.
EFTA00226700
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District ofFlorida
500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
([Phone Redacted]
Facsimile: (56O 820-8777
June 7, 2007
DELIVERY BY HAND
Miss
Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights
Dear
he Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense,
you have a number of rights. Those rights arc:
(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding
involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.
(3) The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court
determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other
portions of a proceeding.
(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court
involving release, plea, or sentencing.
(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case.
(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and
privacy.
Members of the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies,
including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these
rights are protected. If you have an concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at [Phone Redacted], or Special Agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at [Phone Redacted]. You also can contact the ustice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in
Washington, D.C. at [Phone Redacted]. That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov.
You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights listed above and, if you
believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the
Court for
relief.
EFTA00226701
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District ofFlorida
500 South Australian Ave.. Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
([Phone Redacted]
Facsimile: ([Phone Redacted]
June 7, 2007
DELIVERY BY HAND
Miss
Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights
Dear
Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense,
you have a number of rights. Those rights are:
The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding
involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.
The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court
determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are *sent for other
portions of a proceeding.
(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court
involving release, plea, or sentencing.
(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case.
(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and
privacy.
Members of the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies,
including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these
rights are protected. If you concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at [Phone Redacted], or Special Agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at [Phone Redacted]. You also can contact the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in
Washington, D.C. at [Phone Redacted]. That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov.
You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights listed above and, if you
believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for
relief.
EFTA00226702
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
500 South Australian Ave.. Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
([Phone Redacted]
Facsimile: ([Phone Redacted]
June 7, 2007
DELIVERY B HAND
Miss
Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights
Dear
Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense,
you have a number of rights. Those rights are:
(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding
involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.
(3) The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court
determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other
portions of a proceeding.
(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court
involving release, plea, or sentencing.
(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case.
(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and
privacy.
Members of the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal investigative agencies,
including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these
rights are protected. If you have an concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at [Phone Redacted], or Special Agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at [Phone Redacted]. You also can contact e ustice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in
Washington, D.C. at [Phone Redacted]. That Office has a website at www.ovc.gov.
You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights listed above and, if you
believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for
relief.
EFTA00226703
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District ofFlorida
500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
([Phone Redacted]
Facsimile: ([Phone Redacted]
June 7, 2007
DELIVERY BY HAND
Miss
Re: Crime Victims' and Witnesses' Rights
Dear
Pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004, as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense,
you have a number of rights. Those rights are:
(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding
involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.
(3) The right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court
determines that your testimony may be materially altered if you are present for other
portions of a proceeding.
(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court
involving release, plea, or sentencing.
(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case.
(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and
privacy.
Members of the U.S. Department of !once and other federal investigative agencies,
including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, must use their best efforts to make sure that these
rights are protected. If you have an concerns in this regard, please feel free to contact me at [Phone Redacted], or Special Agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at [Phone Redacted]. You also can contact the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime in
Washington, D.C. at [Phone Redacted]. That Office has a wcbsitc at www.ovc.gov.
You can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights listed above and, if you
believe that the rights set forth above are being violated, you have the right to petition the Court for
relief
EFTA00226704
From:
Sent: u ay, June 14, 2007 2:14 PM
To:
Subject: Addendum to Pros Memo
Hi all — I have attached hereto an addendum to the Pros Memo adli ing some of the • '• cems that
you raised regarding Jane Doe #6. I have not sent this directly to , but I would ask add it to
the book containing the pros memo and the attachments.
On another note, we have all discussed different strategies regarding how the final indictment should appear.
At this time, I have not made any revisions to the indictment. Based upon the continued investigation there are
some things that I would like to add (another Jane Doe has been identified and interviewed) and, based upon
your comments, some items that could be deleted. Do you want me to make those changes now or wait until we
have received approval of the current charging strategy?
Thank you. If there is anything that you would like me to prepare in advance of the meeting on the 26th, please
let me know.
Addendum to
Pros Memo.pdf
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West 0I
Tracking:
132
Exhibit 31
EFTA00226705
Read
Read: 6/14/2007 2:22 PM
Read: 6/14/2007 3.48 PM
133
EFTA00226706
From:
Sent: AMP111117,11KIIIISIPZI•
To:
Subject: RE: Meeting Next Week
Sounds good. I will stop by on Monday afternoon. Could you just let you assistant know that I may be
stopping by to get a copy of whatever the defense sends over?
Thanks.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400
West Palm Beach FL 33401
From: Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS)
Seniailay, June 21, 2007 2:58 PM
To: , Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)
Cc: Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS)
Subject: RE: Meeting Next Week
Meeting on Monday is fine. I have meetings with Nand Jeff till around 11 but after that I'm gas As for who is going
to be at the meeting from our side, I thought you, me, Andy, and Jeff. I thought it best to leave out of it at this
venture. As for the Epstein camp, I'm not entirely sure because I don't think Lily was sure last time we spoke. Probably
her, Lercourt, Black and maybe Lewis.
Lily told me that they wanted to present something in writing before the meeting which was why she was pushing us for
the statutes. I view the meeting more as us listening and them presenting their position so I would say that you don't
need to prepare anything (you are quite knowledgeable on the law in any event) but if you disagree we can discuss on
Monday. As for the documents that they have yet to produce, I'll mention it to Lily if you like or we can raise it with
them at the Tuesday meeting.
From:1=, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)
Sent: ursday, June 21, 2007 1:37 PM
To:
Cc:
Su
Importance: High
Hi =I would like to prepare for next week's meeting, and I am wondering if you can tell me who will
attend, both from our side and for Mr. Epstein. I am hoping that we can meet on Monday to discuss any issues
and/or strategy before the meeting on Tuesday, so please let me know when you will be available on Monday.
114
EFTA00226707
Also, if there are any issues that you would like me to be prepared to address — either with you on Monday or
with defense counsel on Tuesday — please give me a list and I will bring the appropriate items with me.
Since Lilly has been communicating with you directly about the meeting, and I have given them the list of
statutes that they have requested, perhaps you could ask her to reciprocate by providing us with their written
analysis (or documents they want us to consider) prior to the meeting so we can address any issues then and
there. Also, during a previous meeting, I asked Lilly and Gerry for copies ofEpstein (or his assistants') agendas
and calendars to show that, as they claim, Epstein's travels to Florida were consciously coordinated so that he
could maintain his Florida residency for tax purposes. Lilly said she would try to get them to us, but has never
done so. I have subpoenaed all of the corporate entities with which Epstein is affiliated and they all claim that
they do not have any responsive documents.
I will plan to be in Miami by around 10:00 on Monday morning, so any time after that is fine.
Thank you.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone [Phone Redacted]
Fax [Phone Redacted]
Tracking:
115
EFTA00226708
Recipient Reed
Menchel. Matthew (USAF LS) Read: 6121/20073:28 PM
116
EFTA00226709
From:
Sent: ur ay, une
To:
Cc:
Jeff (USAFLS)
Subject: Meeting Next Week
Importance: High
Hi Matt: I would like to prepare for next week's meeting. and I am wondering if you can tell me who will
attend, both from our side and for Mr. Epstein. I am hoping that we can meet on Monday to discuss any issues
and/or strategy before the meeting on Tuesday, so please let me know when you will be available on Monday.
Also, if there are any issues that you would like me to be prepared to address — either with you on Monday or
with defense counsel on Tuesday — please give me a list and I will bring the appropriate items with me.
Since Lilly has been communicating with you directly about the meeting, and I have given them the list of
statutes that they have requested, perhaps you could ask her to reciprocate by providing us with their written
analysis (or documents they want us to consider) prior to the meeting so we can address any issues then and
there. Also, during a previous meeting, I asked Lilly and Gerry for copies of Epstein (or his assistants') agendas
and calendars to show that, as they claim, Epstein's travels to Florida were consciously coordinated so that he
could maintain his Florida residency for tax purposes. Lilly said she would try to get them to us, but has never
done so. I have subpoenaed all of the corporate entities with which Epstein is affiliated and they all claim that
they do not have any responsive documents.
I will plan to be in Miami by around 10:00 on Monday morning, so any time after that is fine.
Thank you.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone [Phone Redacted]
Fax [Phone Redacted]
Tracking:
117
EFTA00226710
Recipient Road
Read: 6121/2007 1:52 PM
Read: 6/21/2007 2:24 PM
Read. 6/27/2007 4:43 PM
Read: 6/21/2007 2:03 PM
118
EFTA00226711
JsI-16-07 I I :00il From-Fowl ur-Illitte Burnett [Phone Redacted] 1-151 F.001/004 F-95;
FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A.
Espirito Santo Plaza
Fourteenth Floor
1395 Bnckell Avenue
Atom. Florida 33131.3302
([Phone Redacted]
FAX TRANSMITTAL
Date: Monday, July 16.2007
To:
Fax Number:
From:
Fax Number: ([Phone Redacted] Telephone Number: ([Phone Redacted]
Matter No: 71200 - Epstein
Remarks: Please see attached correspondence from Roy BI e
Jeffrey Epstein matter and the letter in response of
Gerald Lefcourt and I would like to speak to you further regar ing same
since we do not believe that Marie's letter es
raised by Roy Black. I am in my office at
Original documents will not Follow by mail.
Time of Transmittal: a.m./p.m. Transmitted By:
Photocopy:them& be token ofthis tronpuission VII IS 10 6, martinet, sate facsimile paper has limited stu•ate hie
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY PRWILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDNIDU.N. OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. M THE READER
OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED REGIMENT. YOU ME HERESY NOTIFIED THAT ANY crasersNAnoN.
OtSTroatfriON OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROMOTED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED
THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY uS BY TELEPI-IONE
(IF LONG DISTANCE. PLEASE CALL COLLECT) AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE
TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRFCs VIATHE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU.
PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY CALLING ([Phone Redacted], IF THERE IS ANY PROBLEM.
Exhibit 32
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011924
EFTA00226712
;,!-16-07 II:00at From-Fowler—P..14 Burnett [Phone Redacted] T-I5I P 002/004 F-050
07/16/2667 09:06 [Phone Redacted] BLACK SFEB 8 K0RN PAC£ 32
Roy BLACK
BLACK
Hones M. EiRtAtatek SREBNICK CHRRITIKZ It No
SCUTT A. KORNAPAN
WRY A. STUMPF KORNSPAN Jessica FOWSZCA-NADLP
Kan-0.102d P. PHIU1P11
MARIA NCYHA
JACtIt PtRCZIK
& STUMPF WON ANNOta
Iturcoe Defacer. JR.
MARX A.J. SHAPIRO MArnave P. 0llevi
JAIME)
RElioolagtoplack.coro
July 13, 2007
MneantatigliallatatinaliktflatiSIL
Assistant United States Attorney
Office of the United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Re: Grand Jury Subpoena William Riley
Dear Ms.
I represent Jeffrey Epstein, the target of a pending Grand Jury investigation.
Prior to the initiation of this federal investigation, I represented Mr. Epstein on a
Palm Beach Florida State Attorney's Office investigation and subsequently an
Information, the factual basis of which is identical to, and gave rise to, the federal
investigation presently underway.
In connection with my earlier representation of Mr. Epstein, I hired Mr.
William Riley as a private investigator to act under my direction in anticipation of
defending Mr. Epstein against possible criminal charges and any litigation which
may have followed. All his investigations were done as my agent and thus are
covered by the work product privilege, and all communications to him are
protected by the attorney client privilege.
Though we are not conceding the existence of any computers that would be /Lk
responsive to the subpoena served upon Mr. Riley, to the extent there are any i n.
such computers, they would contain documents that are privileged attorney-client / f
-t!:›1
communications and attorney work-product. Your subpoena also asks fo -e:). -, ) r
materials describing the scope of hits investigation and thus they are our work i r ,.../
product.
201 S. tusayne Boulevard. Suite COO - Miami. !bride Bpi Phone. IDS-3714421 • Fax: [Phone Redacted] wirmRojEllaeLcom
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011925
EFTA00226713
LIP -16-01 I I:0las Fros-Falsr-/hit. Surat' [Phone Redacted] T-!3I P 003/004 F-853
97/16/2097 09:46 [Phone Redacted] PACK SRFB 8 KERN PACE 23
2007
Page 2
C
As you know, the ;Inked States Attorneys Office Manual., Guideline. for
Issuing Grand Jury and Thal Subpoenas to Attorneys for Information Relating to
the Representation of Clients, requires that the attorney client and work-product
privilieged information sought by the Grand Jury subpoena issued to Mr. Riley
must first be authorized by the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal
Division before it may issue.
Therefore, please advise me as to whether the applicable sections of the
United States Attorneys Office Manual was complied with prior to the issuance, ' epv
of the Grand Jury subpoena to Mr. Riley. Please also advise as to the preliminary
steps taken in advance of the issuance of the subpoena, as required by the
Manual. Finally, please provide rue with the name of the Assistant Attorney
General of the Criminal Division who undertook the evaluation of the request for
the Grand Jury subpoena, as required by the same section of the Manual and, if
an evaluation was made, the basis upon which the Assistant determined that the
information sought in the subpoena was not protected by a valid claim of privilege.
Sincerely,
R r Black
RB/wg
Black Srebnick.. Komspan & Stumpf. P).
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011926
EFTA00226714
n1-16-07 11:01 eta Pros—fowler-014
07/14/:UUY VU:J4 !AA auspu4sio. Burnett [Phone Redacted] T-151 P 004/004 F-050
U.S- Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District ofFlorida
300 South Aktznaten AYR, Suite 400
Wert Palm Beath, FL 13401
([Phone Redacted]
Facrtmik: ([Phone Redacted]
July 16, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE
Roy Black, Esq.
Black Srebnick 1Cornspan & Stumpf PA
201 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 1300
Miami, FL 33131
Re: Correspondence Dated July 13, 2007
Dear Mr. Black:
Thank you for your letter ofJuly 13, 2007. You and your firm are neither a subpoenaedparty
nor counsel to a subpoenaed parry. Accordingly, pursuant- to the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, I am not at liberty to discuss this matter with you. Moreover, it is nor the practice of this
Office to discuss internal Department of Justice policies Aith non-Justice Department persormel.
If Mr. Riley believes he has cause to move to quash the subpoena, or if Mr. Epstein does for that
matter, counsel for the respective parties should so move. Otherwise, we expect compliance by
tomorrow, which includes a one-week extension already requested by Ms. Sanche2 prior to Mr.
Richey's appearance as counsel for Mr. Riley.
Sincerely,
Assistant United States Anorncy
cc; Andrew Laurie, Esq.
William Richey, Esq.
Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq.
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011927
EFTA00226715
LAW O1•1Of • Of
GISliALD 13. Incotrirr,
•ROYESSioRRL CORIORaft0.
alf EAST 7/3'- STREET
NEW YORE. NSW YORE 10021
GERALD 0. LEFCOURT LLLLL.R3Nt
leloarypekouituroccom .2o2I 7370400
FACSIMILE
221/066102
SHERYL E RE1CR
Nv
C. STABILE
ow
FRIEDM•N
-Oln
June 25, 2007
BY HAND DELIVERY
Jeffrey Sloman, Esq., First Assistant United States Attorney
Matthew Menchel, Esq., Chief, Criminal Division
The United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of Florida
99 NE 4th Street
Miami, Florida 33132
Andrew Lourie, Deputy Chief, Northern Region
A. Marie Villafatla, Assistant United States Attorney
The United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of Florida
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Re: Jeffrey E. Epstein
Dear Messrs. Sloman, Menchel and Lourie and Ms. Villafana:
As you are aware, we represent Jeffrey E. Epstein in connection with your ongoing
investigation. We write to you in advance of our June 26, 2007, meeting to address some of the
concerns that have been raised during our recent conversations. Although not exhaustive of all
the issues we wish to discuss, or points we intend to raise, we believe this submission will
facilitate a more productive meeting by giving you an overview of our position and the materials
we plan to present in order to demonstrate that none of the statutes identified by you can rightly
be applied to the conduct at issue here. We are prepared to discuss the issues raised herein
further at tomorrow's meeting as well as to discuss additional concerns you may voice, all for the
purpose of demonstrating why no federal prosecution
should lie.
The Federal Criminal Statutes Identified Should Not Be Applied Here
It is clear from both the fundamental principles of federal criminal law and the
specific
statutes in question that federal law is not intended to prohibit, nor does it prohibit,
all
"wrongful" sexual activity. Indeed, there_is no federal crime of sex with an underage person
- nt.0 A
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-01 1928
EFTA00226716
Gratato B. Impcouirr,
even assuming such an act took place in this case — nor could there be such a crime under the
United States Constitution. ) By and large, the delineation of such conduct (that is, determining
what conduct is wrongful), and the prosecution for such conduct, have been delegated to the --
states. Such conduct is punishable under state laws, under which the age of consent varies from
14 to 18 with many states making sex with a 16 year old completely lawful regardless of the age
of the other person.2 In short, the role of federal law in this area is carefully circumscribed.
The legislative history of the federal "sex" statutes at issue evinces no federal concern
with the prevalent local phenomenon of young adults — 16 or 17 years of age — voluntarily
choosing to engage in sexual contact with anyone they desire. This is strictly a state concern,
which some states have chosen to criminalize, while others have not, and some local prosecutors
have chosen to prosecute, while others have not. It is not an accident that, as far as we have been
able to determine, there is no federal case involving a defendant who maintains a reasonable
mistake of fact defense, wheralitdefendant reasonably believed IliTc"ffher person was 18 years
a. p. The federal statutes were not meant to apply in those eiTCUMSULDIXS as such conduct is a
matter of state law. The federal statutes were intended to address those cases involving sexual
activity with children. Indeed, the federal concerns intended to be redressed by these statutes, as
evidenced by the legislative history; the advisory tides of the statutes; and even their sometimes
broad language, are: the use of coercion and violence to lead children into a life of prostitution
(12, 13, or 14 years old, or younger); sex trafficking and slavery of children; interstate or foreign
travel to have sex with children (or engage in other illegal sexual activity); and trolling for
children on the interne: in order to have sex with them. None of these concerns is present here.3
These constitute the paradigmatic federal concerns, mainly because the states are ill
prepared to deal effectively with interstate and international trafficking of children. On the other
hand, the states are fully capable of deciding how to deal with entirely local matters relating to
men who allegedly have inappropriate sexual contact with local young women. To disregard
these concerns, to ignore congressional purpose, and attempt to give the federal statutes their
broadest possible interpretation would cause the undesired result of criminalizing federally
and
virtually all acts of prostitution or sexual misconduct — a result not intended by Congress
(ht:TiStR U.S. 549 (1995).
5)4 l
re(ers, each deal in terms of Ate,'
I Notably. Chapter 109A statutes, t g. §§ 2241.2245. to which § 2423(b) inherently
force and/or age. A review of line statues demonstrates that in each instance unless
face is involved, the victim 56)-3 )
must be under 16 years old fora prosecution to lie.
high school students. This was
We understand the Office has taken the view that Mr. Epstein targeted underage
and we will be prepared to discuss at our meeting the objective evidence demonstrating no
absolutely not the case
such targeting occurred.
P-011929
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA
EFTA00226717
tAiV Or VICES Or
GERALD B. Intoner, P.G.
unlikely to be sanctioned by the courts.4 To stretch the statutes in the unprecedented way it
appears is contemplated would do just that.
Although in this memo we have focused primarily on the federal sex statutes, in the same
way that those statutes cannot logically be expanded to cover the conduct at issue, neither can the
statutes governing monetary transactions. These latter statutes, designed to curb the use of what
would appear to be otherwise innocent financial transactions to disguise proceeds of unlawful
activity and avoid Internal Revenue Code requirements, have no place in this case. The ills
sought to be remedied by these statutes are far removed from the conduct in which Mr. Epstein
purportedly engaged.
We address each statute in turn, starting with those regulating monetary transactions.
18 U.S.C. § 1956(aX3) - The Money Laundering Statute - Does
Not Apply to Mr. Epstein's Alleged Misconduct
No reasonable reading of the money laundering statute can countenance such a charge
against Mr. Epstein, for the statute on its face, or as even applied by the courts, has absolutely no
application to the alleged misconduct. Under the facts of this case, to charge Mr. Epstein with
violating the money laundering statute would be both unprecedented and inappropriate.
i
The money laundering statute was designed to be used and has been consved as a
"concealment" statute, not a spending statute. See Unity.
Cir.), cert denied, 545 U.S. 1110 (2005); UnitedStates
Shepard, II3d 1116 (10th
4 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2006)
(money laundering statute does not criminalize the mere spending or investing of illegally
obtained assets. Instead, at least one purpose for the expenditure must be to conceal or disguise
the assets).
The Eleventh Circuit has held that 'Igo prove money laundering under § 1956(a)(3), the
government must show that the defendant (1) conducted or attempted to conduct a financial
transaction (2) involving property represented to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity,
(3) with the intent (a) 'to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity,'
(b) 'to conceal
or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of property believed to be
the
4 "Section 1591 does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state
Rather, its real is limited t regulation).
trafficking that jgntig,0Nop or is accomplished by force, fraud, or coercion".
UnitedStales Evans, 476 ■3d 1176, 1179 it I (Il• Ctr. 2007). Nor, has the Department of
appropriate. e e.g. Unit tates Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Anti-TraffickinJustice deemed it
g News Bulletin.
August/September 2004, Vol. I, Nos. 8 and 9, at 2 (in order to address the demand for prostitution the federal
government must work with the state, as it is state law that conuots).
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-01 1930
EFTA00226718
Lew Oirfla• a
GERALD B. Int:our, P.G
proceeds of specified unlawful activity,' or I ) 'to avoid araction reporting requirement
under State orfederal law"'. United States Puche, 350 3d 1137 (11" Cir. 2003);' see also
United States I Arditti, 955'.2d 331 (5° Cir.), reh'g denied cert. denied 506 U.S. 998 (1992),
cert. denied 506 U.S. 1054, reh'g denied 507 U.S. 967 (1993) (undercover agent's representation
that he was in the cocaine business and that the initial 515,000 were the proceeds of a collection
satisfied requirement for establishing basis for money laundering "sting" operations that
government agent represent that property involved in the transaction was the "proceeds of
specified unlawful activity, or property used to conduct or facilitate specified unlawful activity').
Thus, it is clear that the statute unquestionably and explicitly requires (a) the use of
proceeds of specifiedunlawful activity, or (b) cash which is or was represented to be the product
-oTfo activity, with neither paradigm being applicable in the case. That this was how the
statute was intended to be used and is understood is further evidenced by section 9-105 of the
United States Attorney's Manual, which states:
Sections 1956 and 1957 both require that the property involved in
the money laundering transaction be the proceeds of specified
unlawful activity at the time that the transaction occurs. The statute
does not define when property becomes "proceeds," but the context
implies that the property will have been derived from an already
completed offense, or a completed phase of an ongoing offense,
before it is laundered. Therefore, as a general rule, neither § 1956
nor § 1957 should be used where the same financial transaction
represents both the money laundering offense and a part of the
specified unlawful activity generating the proceeds being
laundered.
The allegations of this case simply do not support a money laundering charge. Any
would stretch the
attempt to make such a charge would constitute inappropriate overreaching and
Unlike the typical money laundering case, Mr. Epstein did
statute beyond its intended purpose.
from anyi riminal conduct which he then used in a financial
not receive money or funds
charged
transaction. See, e.g.. United States Taylor, 239 I. 3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001) (defendant
escort service and using pro Beds from that business to pay credit cards
with running an illegal
can be Enid guilty of
Instructive is Eleventh Circuit Patten Jury Instruction 70.4 which states that the defendant ro Y
I 9S6(aX3XA) only if( I ) he knowingly conducted a financial innsaction (7) thtfithlathaifm all
proceeds of specified unlawful activity a that was wad conduct or tK11iIYafPed
represented to be the
intent to promote the carrying on of
unkawiul activity; and (3) the defendant engaged in the transaction with the
specified %awful activity.
P-011931
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA
EFTA00226719
Off gee'Or
Oakum B. Lrarcoun, Pt.
used to purchase airline tickets to fly prostitutes to Las Vegas). Nor did Mr. Epstein use money
he knew otherwise to be unlawfully tainted in a financial transaction designed to facilitate,
conduct, or promote prostitution or other criminal conduct. Rather, to the extent the evidence
may show that Mr. Epsteinpaid for sexual services, he most certainly did so with untainted,
legitins4Mknamed funds.
In addition, unlike the typical "sting" case which 1956(aX3) was enacted to address,
there is no evidence that Mr. Epstein was aware, or that government or law enforcement
personnel made him aware of circumstances from which he could reasonably have inferred that
the finds were from specified unlawful activity. This is not a case where large amounts of cash
of questionable origin were repeatedly delivered to Mr. Epstein in small denominations in duffel
k3d
bags and boxes. See, e.g.. Puche, supra, 350, 3d 1137; see also United States v. Rahseparian,
231 to 1257
(10th
(government
prove
Cir.
2000)
failed
that defendant knew that money
was o tained by mail fraud, the unlawful activity underlying money laundering count).
To proceed under a view that the statute covers such behavior would lead to the
(
-------
unintended result of making use of a credit card or wire transfer to pay for sexual services
provided by a prostitute money laundering. That was surely not what Congress intended, how
the courts have interpreted the language of the statute, or even how it is viewed by the
Department of Justice.
18 U.S.C. § 1960 - Prohibition of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business Does Not
Apply to Mr. Epstein's Alleged Misconduct
Likewise, a prosecution under § 1960 cannot lie.
18 U.S.C. § 1960 is a regulatory statute that was enacted in order to combat the growing
use of money transmitting businesses for the purpose of transferring large sums of illegally
obtained monies and to avoid the strictures of the Internal Revenue Code, as well to fund
The type of business contemplated by Congress is one f ich, for a fee, accipts funds
fortransfer within or outside the ited States. See inited States Talebnejad, 46013d 563,
565 (46 Cir. 2006); United States Velastegut, 199 3d 590 (2d ir. 1999). Once the
money
transmitter receives the fee and the money from the customer, a third party at the recipient
location then pays the money to the designee or the transmitter wires the money directly
to the
recipient.
These formal and informal businesses are often operated for the purpose of sending
money to an individual's home country front the United States. See. e.g., Talebnejad,
supra, 460
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA
P-01 1932
EFTA00226720
1-^"' 4 .ct
GERALD B. LEPOOTLRT, P.G.
I199
.3d at 567 (Iranian immigrants operated money transmitting
I3d at 593 (money
mess rn ary an ,• elastegui,
transferred to Mexico by unlicensed agent); United States Bah, 2007
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25274 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)idefendant operated restaurant in New York which also
transmitted cash overseas); United Stares Abdullah, 2006 U.S. Dist. I.EXIS 47493 (W.D.Va.
2006) (Iraqi defendant charged customers a fee for transferring money from the United States to
Middle Eastern countries). However, as noted, in many instances, due to the lack of uniform
regulation, these businesses have served to transfer funds which were the proceeds of illegal
activity. See United States' Valdes, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12432 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (defendants
transmitted proceeds of drug trafficking to Colombia); see also P.L. 103-325, Title IV, § 408,
108 Stat. 2252. In response to the growing concern about this improper use of these businesses,
Congress enacted § 1960, in conjunction with § 5330, establishing a regulatory scheme to assist
in the effective enforcement of criminal, tax, and other laws and prevent such businesses from
participating in any illegal enterprises. Id.
It is clear that § 1960 does not apply, and was never intended to apply, to Mr. Epstein's S.2
purported misconduct. Mr. Epstein did not own or operate a "money transmitting business" as
defined in § 5330. Nor was he in the money transmitting business. Mr. Epstein was not
providing check cashing, currency exchange, or money transmitting or remittance services. Nor
was he issuing or redeeming money orders, travelers' checks, or other similar instruments, or
acting as a person engaged as a business in the transmission of funds.
Indeed, he was not carrying on a business at all through these transfers. The term
"business" is defined as an "activity or enterprise for gain, benefit, advantage or livelihood"
(Black's Law Dictionary (7° ed. 2007)) or as "a usually commercial or mercantile activity
engaged in as a means of livelihood". Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. The only funds
transferred were Mr. Epstein's personal monies, monies he lawfully earned. He did not profit
from the transmission of this money. Nor was the act of transmitting the money a means of his
livelihood. He simply took legitimate money and used it to meet his financial obligations.
At best, the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Epstein transmitted funds from personal
accounts in New York to accounts in Florida in order to pay for personal expenses - food,
flowers, household upkeep, etc. This cannot be viewed as anything different from giving cash to
a family member, or transferring money from a savings or brokerage account to a checking
account, in order to pay bills and expenses. Under no reading of the facts can Mr. Epstein's
conduct in transferring money between his accounts constitute a "business", much less a money
transmitting business. As such, a prosecution under the statute should not lie.
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011933
EFTA00226721
taw Or net, Or
GERA in H. lartaxxarint. P.C.
I8 U.S.C. § 1591 - The Misconduct Alleged Does Not Fall Within the Ambit
of the Statute
18 § 1591 - "Sex Trafficking of Children or by Force, Fraud, or Coercion" — was
passed as part of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA") to address a problem far
removed from the present set of circumstances: human trafficking, in general, and human sex
trafficking, in particular, involving both a commercial and coercive component. The statutory
scheme was designed to prevent the organized exploitation of women and children for profit and
was not intended to address the conduct alleged here:
The central principle behind the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
is that criminals who knowingly operate enterprises that profit
from sex acts involving persons who have been brought across
international boundaries for such purposes by force or fraud, or
who force human beings into slavery, should receive punishment
commensurate with the penalties for kidnapping and forcible rape.
147 Cong. Rec. E2179.02; see also United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
Anti-Trafficking News Bulletin, April 2005, Vo. 2, No. I at 1; July 2004, Vol. 1, No 7. at 6; and
January 2004, Vol. 1, No. I, at 1, 3 (reflecting the positions of President Bush, Attorney General
former Attorney General Ashcroft, and former Assistant Attorney General for the
ivi t is Division Acosta that human trafficking involves force, fraud and coercion, and is a
form of modern day slavery). The behavior and actions of Mr. Epstein are far removed from the
human trafficking concerns addressed by Congress in enacting § 1591. Any attempt to prosecute
him under this section would be unprecedented and highly irregular.
Not surprisingly, the case law does not support any such prosecution. Nationwide there
are relatively few appellate decisions dealing with prosecutions under § 1591. In the Eleventh
Circuit, there are only a handful, several of which are unpublished. A review of these cases
reveals that the paradigmatic case for enforcement falls into one of two categories.' The first
involves defendants who have engaged in a highly predatory sort of business — pcnu .
undelaRc_Persons, either by force, fraud, or coercii. These cases bear no relationshitp to the
circumstance at issue here. See, e.g., United States Norris, 188 Fed. Appx. 822 (II Cir. 2006)
(unpublished)(prosecution of several men for conspiracy to hold young women in peonage, and
to traffic them for commercial sex acts, involving force and threats; bail issue); United Stares v.
4 A review of the Linked Sutes Department of Justice Civil Rights
Division Anti-Trafficking News Bulktins
confirms that this same pattern exists natiomvide. We will be prepared to discuss these cases further at ow meeting
and will supply details about the cases upon request.
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-01 1934
EFTA00226722
.O.cet at
Gramm B. Liwcount, P.C.
Sims, 161 Fed. Appx. 849, 2006 WL 14581 (I I ° Cir. 2006) (unpublished). See also Evans,
supra, 47613d 1176. The second involves sex tourism sting operations where the defendants
signed up for a "Taboo Vacation," usually to go to Costa Rica to have sex with children. In these
cases the state interest is relatively minimal and United States treaty obligations have made
federal intervention a high priority. See, e.g., United States' Clarke, 159 Fed. Appx. 128, 2005
WL 3438434 (11th Cir. 2005Xunpublished); United StatesIStrevell, 185 Fed. Appx. 841, 2005
WI. 1697529 (II' Cir. 2006Xunpublished), cent. denied, I 7 U.S. 692 (2006). No such federal
interest is implicated in the purely local case of Mr. Epstein.
Here, there was no trafficking — no "force, fraud or coercion"; no threats; no sexual
servitude; no financial venture; no profit from a financial venture; no forced work in the
commercial sex industry; and no transporting of children from underdeveloped countries to the
United States or even across state lines. Nor was there any conduct which can be considered so
extremely abusive or violent, that an expansion of the statutes beyond their intended purpose
would be warranted.
18 U.S.C. § 2421 - Mann Act - The Statute Was Not Intended To Address
The Misconduct Alleged Here
Any attempt to charge Mr. Epstein under 18 U.S.C. § 2421 would violate both the spirit
and purpose of the statute. Section 2421 was first enacted by Congress in 1910 to prevent the use
of intistate commerce to facilitate prostitution, conTbinage, or other forms of immorality.
flake I UtedStates, 227 U.S. 308 (1913); Wilson United States, 232 U.S. 563 (1914);
Caminetti United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917). The statute's primary purpose was to address
d
the so-called commercial case of transporting females for immoral purposes. Clevelan
United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946) (even though the Act includes some non-commer cial ekses
within its scope, its primary focus is commercial sexual activity); United StatesI sJamerson, 60i
t conduct,
Supp 281 (D.C. Iowa 1944). However, it has also served to protect women agai
whethv commercial
commerc no
orial t involves transportation and is exploitive or violent. See, e.g., De
Cir. 1964) (applying the Act to protect girl who
Vault I United States, 338 2d 179,180 (10th
was raped).
r
The Mann Act is a relatively antiquated morality statute that, despite its overly
language, is wisely used only sparingly. Notably, the most
Circuit involving the Mann Act was decided in 1984.
recent
United
re
States
rted decision
Phelps, 733
in
'.
broad-j ---
the 11th
2d 1464
(11th Cir. 1984).
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-01 1935
EFTA00226723
LAW OII.CCS Or
GERALD D. LEPOOlat
Indeed, a nationwide search of reported prosecutions convictions er a ct
reveals that the statute has primarily been limitelt to cases involving prostitution rings/businesses
and their owners. United States! Hearn( 381 .3d 80 (2d Cir. 2004) (woman running
prostitution business convicted for recruiting and transport of prostitutes under § 2421); United
States' Footman, 215 1.3d 145 (I" Cir. 2000) (pimp who ran a prostitution ring convicted of
violating § 2421). Likewise, in keeping with its purpose and title, the statute has been used in
sex trafficking cases involving the exploitation of the poor and disadvantaged from foreign
countries. See, e.g., United StatesIJulian, 427 I3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005) (sex tourism operator in
Mexico facilitating travel of poor exican boy for sexual relationship in the United States
violated § 2421). On the other hand, other cases which have targeted non-owners of prostitution
rings, have further limited § 2421 prosecutions to circumstances involving egregious conduct,
such as the use of force or kidnapping. See, e.g United States v. Lowe, 145 F.3d 45 (1" Cir.
1998) (defendant transported woman across state lines against her will and then raped her). See
also Poindexter 'United States, 139 12d 158 (8th Cir. 1943) (transportation by defendant of
woman across state line with purpose of raping her violated 18 U.S.C. § 2421 since statute
covers interstate transportation of woman withoipecuniary vere intent is to have illicit
relations with her by force or otherwise); Brown United States, motivei
237 .2d 281 (8th Cir. 1956)
(the defendant violated the Act when he tricked woman into his car and drove her across state
lines where he threatened, choked, struck and raped her, and then drove her back to the bus depot
where he had picked her up). As we have previously pointed out, the allegations being levied
against Mr. Epstein involve no such misuar4uct
We have found no reported decision in the past 20 years in which an individual was
prosecuted under the Mann Act for simply traveling across state lines with a woman whom he
paid for sexual services — even assuming the evidence shows this to be the case here. To use the
Act to prosecute Mr. Epstein, where he was neither the owner nor operator of a prostitution ring,
and where there are no allegations of kidnapping, force, or violence, would be unprecedented and
would stretch the statute beyond what all understand is its modern day incepted purpose.
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) — The Misconduct Alleged Does Not Fall Within
the Ambit of the Statute
In enacting thEinternebrolling statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), Congressional concerns
were focused on a very specific and recent phenomenon: young people using the Internet
in
ever-increasing numbers, and attracting sexual predators out of the woodwork. Disturbingly,
computers and the intemet made it frighteningly easy for sexual predators to enter into the
homes
of families, undetected by parents, and prey on these children in cyberspace. As
Congress
recognized, with so many children online, the intemet provided predators a new
place -
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011936
EFTA00226724
ta w MIKES 0/
(imam) B. Urecourrr,
cyberspace - to target children for criminal acts. Congress enacted the intemet trolling statute to
combat the alarming increase in interne predators, who were able to maintain their anonymity,
while making unwanted sexual solicitations of vulnerable youngsters.
The statutory language and reported decisions confirm the statute's important, but
narrow, focus. Section 2422(b) does not establish any federal sex crimes with a minor, which
remain a matter of state, not federal, concern. Instead, as the reported cases reveal, it defines a
crime of communication, not of sexual contact. Indeed, what all of the cases have in common is
.")to communicate with a child or purported child (or a person
that the defendant used thkinternet
with influence over such a child or purported child), and with the intent to arrange a sexual tryst
with the child, with both the belief that the person was a child and withfull knowledge that
sexual activity with an individual of that age was illegal - precisely the situation the statute was
designed to reach.
Mr. Epstein's case lies far outside those parameters, and far outside the language and
intended reach of the statute. In Mr. Epstein's case, even if there were inappropriate sexual
contact with one or more 16 or 17 year olds, there was no use of the Internet to lure young
victims, and no danger presented by Internet predation.
18 U.S.C. § 2423(6) — No Travel For The Purpose of Engaging In Illicit
Sexual Conduct, As Required By The Statute
The linchpin of a prosecution under § 2423(b) is "travelfor the purpose ofengaging in . .
. illicit sexual conduct". The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that no case can be made
that Mr. Epstein ever traveled to Florida in order to engage in illicit sexual conduct.
Elimination of the "purpose" requirement of the statute would undermine congressional
intent, as recently expressed and re-affirmed in the Trafficking Act of 2002 and PROTECT Act
of 2003.7 Unlike subsections (a) and (b), § 2423(c), makes it unlawful to travel inforeign
was
commerce and engage in illicit sexual conduct, without any proof of intent or purpose. It
faced in
enacted in response to the extraordinary difficulties the Department of Justice had
travel cases.
proving a defendant's intent or purpose in traveling when prosecuting foreign
which continues to require purpose where the
Significantly, Congress did nor amend § 2423(6),
the state's primary interest in proscribing illicit
travel is interstate. Thus, Congress recognized
the state, unless one traveled to the state for that purpose.
sexual conduct occurring within
Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation ofth ildren Today Act of 2003. Pub. I.. No. 108-
1
2%, 117 Sut. 650 (2003). See generally United Slam v. Clark, 435 3 1100 (9. Cir. 2006).
P-011937
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA
EFTA00226725
LAW orr las or
GMititin a Lepcotnrr•, P.G
Legislative intent, and concepts of federalism, would be undermined if interstate travel with only
incidental sexual conduct were prosecuted.
The nature and scope of Mr. Epstein's activities in Florida do not support the conclusion
that any purported illicit sexual conduct was an "important" "purpose of the travel, a significant
motivating factor", or in other words, more than merely incidental. See United States'.
Horsehauer, 2007 WL 979931 (I I d' Cir. 2007) (unpublished).
We understand from conversations with Ms. Villatitfla that she believes that Mr. Epstein
was and is a resident ofNew York, and that all trips to other homes were trips "away from
home," undertaken for a limited period and with a specific purpose. The evidence clearly does
not support this view.'
Mr. Epstein has owned a home in Florida since September, 1990 - longer than any other
residence he has owned - when he purchased the property on El Brillo Way. lie spent
substantial amounts of money during the relevant period to improve and to maintain this home.
In addition, his travel records demonstrate that during the relevant period Mr. Epstein both spent
the majority of his weekends, and additional time in Florida. Although he left Florida for
business and other projects, he consistently returned to Florida, weekend after weekend, year
after year. Specifically, the flight logs establish that for the period 2003 - 2005 (through
September) , there is no month when he did not spend at least one long weekend in Florida,
including in the summer months, and that he spent well over half of all weekends in Florida.10
Upon returning to Florida, Mr. Epstein routinely visited with various family members and
close friends, all of whom reside or have homes in Florida, saw his primary care physician for
checkups and prescribed tests, and frequented movie theaters and comedy clubs. Notably, during
the relevant period, Mr. Epstein's mother took seriously ill, was often hospitalized, and
convalesced in Florida until she died in 2004. A principal reason for Mr. Epstein's travels to
sik, ' Although the locus of one's residency for tax purposes is not conclusive the question of where
on
resides, on a number of occasions since 1995 the taxing authorities of New York State have one in fact
determined that Mr.
ktt.
geli, Ccs Epstein did not spend sufficient time in New York to be considered
a resident of New York for tax purposes. Since
1999, Mr. Epstein has qualified undo. the applicable test as a domiciliary of the United States Virgin Islands and is
q,
Crie... . I therefore entitled to the tax advantages being a domiciliary there
affords.
....
94. Mr. Epstein stopped traveling to Florida beginning in October. 2005. tA4414
9
,C do,gelitil s eaS SO
g, 7 -/I. In 2003, there were 31 multi-day trips to Florida. 29 of which were for multi-day
-.9 9 trips to Florida. 36 of which were multi day weekends; and in 2005 (nine months). weekentlsTV1-7-4 midti-day
of which were multi-day weekends. 24 multi-day trips to Florida, 2I
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA
1)-01 1938
EFTA00226726
La O. tet S
Gemara, B. l.rsociumr,
Florida during that time was to visit with and attend to his mother's needs, sec to her funeral
arrangements, and address matters relating to her estate.
In recognition of the amount of time he spent in Florida, during the relevant period Mr.
Epstein worked with several local real estate agents to purchase a larger home. For example, in
2004, as publicly reported, he attempted to acquire the Gosman Estate, a unique property that
was eventually auctioned by the Bankruptcy Court.
Similarly, due to the extensive amount of time he spent in Florida and his desire to have
his pilots close by and available should a flight out of Florida be required, the home base for Mr.
Epstein's flight operations was Florida. Routine maintenance of the aircraft, periodic FAA
inspections, and interior refittings were all carried out in Florida. Indeed, the regular crew
members - the pilots and engineer - all resided in Florida, as did the majority of contract cr ew
members who were hired from time to time. Both Hyperion Air Inc. (legal owner of Mr.
Epstein's Gulfstream G-IIB), and JEGE, Inc. (legal owner of Mr. Epstein's Boeing 727), rent
office space and a storage facility in Florida for the purpose of housing airplane records,
including flight logs and wiring drawings, and providing the crew with a local office.
The amount of time Mr. Epstein spent at his home in Florida, and the extensive list of
Florida-based activities clearly undermines the contention that Mr. Epstein is a New York_
resident and defeats the notion that his purpose in traveling to Florida was to engage in illicit
sexual conduct. On the contrary, Mr. Epstein returned to Florida to engage in the routine
activities of daily living. We do not believe that the government could overcome the many
substantial hurdles to be encountered when attempting to prove that a specific trip to Florida was
for the required statutory "purpose" of engaging in specific "illicit sexual conduct"."
Improprieties Surrounding The Search Warrant
We previously referred to the many irregularities, misrepresentations and omissions
which tainted the state's case. These irregularities would have a significant impact on any
search
federal prosecution. For example, early on in any prosecution, the legality of the initial
conduct did not violate § 2423(b). For
" There are, of course, a number of other ways in which Mr. Cpuein's
difficult to show under the facts that at the time he initiated his travel to Florida,
instance, we anticipate that it will be
knew the woman from whom he would later receive a massage, if at all, was at the time under the age of I II, or
he
statute. Similarly, and again assuming that it could
that he would engage in "illicit sexual conduct" as defined by that
was to receive a massage, given that the activities during
be shown that one of his purposes in traveling to Florida
massages varied, we do not believe it can be established that his purpose (or even one of his purposes)
many of the
act", however that tam is ultimately defined.
in traveling was to engage in "a sex
l'-011939
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA
EFTA00226727
LAW 0 , 1,ICC•
GET/ t) B. Larceuat P.C.
conducted pursuant to the state search warrant would need to be litigated. The warrant suffers
from such substantial glaring, facial deficiencies that a motion to suppress would likely result in
the suppression of all items seized during the search of 358 El Brilb, as well as all evidence
derived from the search, both physical and testimonial.
In addition, the affidavit prepared by Det. Recarey in support of the search warrant is
replete with material misstatements and omissions which, if not intentional, at a minimum, were
made with reckless disregard for the truth. The principal misstatements and omissions all
involve Dct. Recarey's assertions of what the women interviewed said in their recorded sworn
statements, statements taken by Det. Recarey himself and with which he was fully familiar.
However, a comparison of the transcripts of those interviews with the information set forth in the
affidavit reveals many instances in which Del. Recarey represented to the issuing judge that the
women interviewed said things which they did not in fact say, or tailed to reveal material
information contained in those same statements that would have been important for the judicial
officer to know in determining whether the warrant should issue at all and, if so, whether the
seizure of the broad categories of items outlined in the warrant should be authorized.
Additionally, the execution of the warrant resulted in the seizure of a number of items which
clearly fell outside the scope of the warrant, thus, requiring suppression of these unlawfully
seized items.
The material misstatements and omissions fall into three categories: (I) the
mischaracterization of the significance of surveillance/videotape equipment located in Mr.
Epstein's home; (2) the mischaracterization and misrepresentation of facts associated with the
ages of the women and Mr. Epstein's claimed knowledge of their ages; and (3) the
mischaracterization and misrepresentation of facts concerning the conduct in which Mr. Epstein
allegedly engaged with these women. We take each in turn.
Misrepresentations Regarding The Surveillance Equipment
In an attempt to justify a seizure of computers at Mr. Epstein's residence — despite the
fact that there was no misconduct alleged in connection with the use of computers — Det. Recarey
affirmed that he
. . . recalled working a previous case within Epstein's residence on
October 5, 2003, when Epstein reported a theft from within his
house. A former, disgruntled houseman was suspected in stealing
monies from the house. At that time, I observed several coven
cameras which, would capture and record images of anyone within
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-01 1940
EFTA00226728
la CO KC.. Of
OF-ILALD 1i.LErcousrr,
the residence. Epstein had purchased covert cameras which were
built in wall clocks and table clocks. These images were then
downloaded onto proprietary spyware software for later viewing.
(Affidavit at 10).
The clear implication of Det. Recarey's statement is that images of the purported "victims" may
have been captured on the cameras and downloaded to computers where they remained, and
could be seized, pursuant to a warrant.
Oct. Recarey, however, knew full well, but failed to inform the court, that the cameras
were part of a security system installed with the assistance of the Palm Beach Police Department
and were located in only two areas of the house - Mr. Epstein's office and the garage. Dm.
Recarey was also aware - but did not tell the court - that none of the women interviewed alleged
that she visited, much less engaged in illicit conduct, with Mr. Epstein in either location. Finally,
none of the witnesses ever claimed, even when asked, that Mr. Epstein videotaped her, or
evidenced any knowledge whatsoever that he may have videotaped her visit. There can be no
doubt that hipnisstatements andcmissioAwere intentional and designed to establish probable
cause that did not exist and to overcome staleness concerns.
Misrepresentations Regarding The Age Of The Witnesses and Mr.
Epstein's Knowledge
Oct. Recarey affirmed that claimed:
(Mr. Epstein) told her the younger the better. (Affidavit at 4)
And, that:
stated she once tried to bring a 23 year old female and
Epstein stated that the female was too old. (Affidavit at 4)
which
What Det. Recarcy, no doubt intentionally, omitted was MEs further explanation,
rendered Mr. Epstein's comments innocuous:
A: Let me put it this way, he — I tried to bring him a woman
who was 23 and he didn't really like it.
Q: Ile didn't go for it?
care
A: It's not that he didn't go for it. It's just that he didn't
for it. And he likes the aids that are between the arts of
18 and 20. (Robson Statement at 12) (emphasis added)
P-011941
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA
EFTA00226729
tAvr pricy" Or
GERALD 13. LEFGOCERT.
! lad that critical information - information that turns allegedly illegal conduct into more innocent
conduct - been included it would have seriously undermined the probable cause for the search
warrant.
Similarly, and equally problematic, Det. Recarey refused to include statements
demonstrating that when asked by Mr. Epstein, the girls affirmatively misrepresented their ages
as bein 18, and/or Mr. Ein i was not aware of their true ages. (Gonzales Statement at 39,
Statement at 12, Statement at 5, Statement at 9). Indeed, although he
noted that Gonzales had told Mr. Epstein she was 18, omitted from the affidavit why she lied:
said tell him you're 18 because if you're not, he won't let
you in his house. So I said I was 18. As I was giving him a
massage, he was like how old are you. And then 1 was 18. But I
kind of said it really fast because I didn't want to make it sound
like I was lying or anything. (Gonzales Statement at 39).
Misrepresentations Regarding The Conduct In Which Mr. Epstein Purportedly
Engaged
In the following statement Det. Recarey affirmatively misrepresented what
■ stated:
"Hall states Epstein would photograph them naked and having sex
and proudly display the photographs within the home". (Affidavit
at 9).
Ms.. actually made the following statement:
A: 1 was just like, it was me standing in front of a big white
marble bathtub ... And it, it wasn't like I was you know
spreading my legs or anything for the camera, I was like, I
was standing up. I think 1 was standing up and I just like it,
it was me kind of like looking over my shoulder kinda
smiling, and that was that. (Hall Statement at 35).
Oct. Recarey further swore in his affidavit that [Victim Name Redacted]
Advised that sometime during the massage, Epstein grabbed her
buttocks and pulled her close to him. (Affidavit at 6).
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-01 1942
EFTA00226730
O/ICCS Or
GICRALL1 a LEFGO1,121; P.C.
squarely denied being touched "inappropriately" or otherwise by Mr. Epstein:
Q: .. . . He did not touch you inappropriately?
A: No. ( Statement at I I).
These misrepresentations were compounded by Det. Recarey's failure to include accounts
by the witnesses that Mr. Epstein did not in fact engage in illicit conduct during their encounters.
Specifically, Oct. Recarey did nor inform the court that witnesses stated' were not asked
to and did not touch Mr. Epstein's genitals, (Gonzales Statement at 43, Statement at 12);
(2) they did not have sex with Misfetispin, (Gonzales Statement at 43); (3) r. Epstein did not
masturbate during the massage, Statement at I I; Statement at 13; and
Statement at 7); and, (4) Mr. Epstein did not touch them inappropriately. ( Statement at
I 1; Statement at 13, IS; Gonzales Statement at 42).
After all the misstatements are corrected, the omissions included, and the irrelevant facts
omitted, what is left is an equivocal account of an encounter eight months prior to the warrant
application and an equally unreliable account of an encounter which, even assuming arguendo it
occurred, was more than eleven months old. Surely this evidence was too stale to support
issuance of a search warrant, as it did not provide probable cause to believe that any items
evidencing a violation of the subject statutes — let alone any items of the type described as "kept
and used" in such violations — would still be on the premises at the time of the search.
Unlawful Search Of The Second Residence
The officers executing the search warrant exceeded the scope of the warrant when they
entered and proceeded to search the second residence on Mr. Epstein's property. Even if those
agents did not know in advance that the building was a second residence, which they did," that
fact would have been immediately obvious to them upon entry. Notwithstanding such
knowledge, they disregarded the tents of the warrant and proceeded to search the second
residence.
and
There was no probable cause for a search of that residence and thus, both the search
seizure of items found therein violated the Fourth Amendment.
knew prior to searching the
" A review of the videotape of the pre-search walk-thiv of El Brillo reveals that officers
of someone other than Mr.
second residence and seizing bans located therein, that this was the living quarters
Michael Dawson recounts "I
Epstein. This is corroborated by the Palm Beach Police Report in which Officer message book was seized". Police
assisted in the search of Banasiak's living quarters. Numerous cd's along with a
Report at 46; see also Police Repot at 45.
P-011943
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA
EFTA00226731
GERALD B. Inc:tourer,
However, even assuming the warrant could possibly be read to encompass the search of
the second residence, the affidavit is completely devoid of probable cause to search it. "[W]hen
law enforcement wishes to search two houses or two apartments, it must establish probable cause
as to each". United States, Cannon, 264 I3d 875, 879 (9th Cir. 200O.
There Was No Probable Cause To Seize Many Of The Items Listed In The Warrant
In addition, there was no probable cause to search for videotapes since all the women
who were asked whether they had been videotaped denied knowledge of any videotaping. These
are crucial facts which Det. Rccarey omitted from his affidavit. Moreover, as noted, Det. Recarey
had actual knowledge from his prior investigation that that were a limited number of video
cameras located in the house and they were focused only on Mr. Epstein's desk and the garage -
two locations where money was kept and where no one alleged any wrongdoing took place.
Likewise, nothing in the affidavit could support a finding of probable cause to believe
that computers or computer-related items were used in the commission of the alleged offenses.
The seizure and subsequent search of the computers and computer-related items clearly violated
the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., United States' Riccardi, 40513d 852, 862-63 (10th Cir.
2005) (warrant authorizing seizure of computer, all electronic an magnetic media stored therein,
and a host of external storage devices without limitation unconstitutional as authorizing general
search); United States1Joe, 2007 WL 108465 at *7 (N.D.Cal. January 10, 2007) ("computers
and related or similar devices, and information on hard or floppy drives, which m contain any
documents and records ...." overbroad and ordering suppression); United States 'Stacy, 433
I Supp.2d 499, 500 (E.D.Pa. 2006) ("[a]ny records, documents, materials and files maintained on
a computer" overbroad because it authorized agents to seize everything, yen if unrela
offense under investigation and even if wholly personal); United States I Cough, 246111.2d
84, 87-88 (D.Me. 2003Xwarrant to search computers which contained tations on the
search was unconstitutionally overbroad); United States Hunter, 13 .2d 574, 584 (D.Vt.
I998Xsection of warrant which authorized seizure of all computers, all computer storage devices,
and all computer software systems was unconstitutionally overbroad).
Finally, there was no probable cause to believe that "hair fiber, semen, or other bodily
fluids" would likely to be at Mr. Epstein's residence some eight months or more after the
alleged
criminal violations.
There are serious hurdles to a federal prosecution, including the way the federal
investigation was initiated, namely by Palm Beach Police Detective Recarcy.
Although Dm
Recarey's questionable actions undermined the state proceeding, his work was
provided to your
Office "on a silver platter". Even though the FBI conducted its own investigation
, that
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA
1)-011944
EFTA00226732
or
Law *mon
Grain) a LatICOURT, P.C.
investigation cannot avoid being tainted by Det. Recarey's actions. Many of the leads the FBI
followed, the witnesses it interviewed, and the documents it subpoenaed all inexorably flowed
directly from the fruits of Det. Recarey's investigation.
Det. Recarey's credibility is interwoven in the federal investigation given the overlap of
witnesses and documentary evidence with the antecedent state investigation. Not only would a
federal prosecution implicate issues of the scope of taint of both physical evidence and witness
testimony emanating from the state search, a federal prosecution would inexorably result in
scrutiny of the extent to which Det. Recarers pre-search investigation was adversely
compromised by his zeal to prosecute Mr. Epstein.
That Det. Recarey's desire to prosecute Mr. Epstein ran so deep is no more evident than
through his participation in the unprecedented, selective, and prejudicial public release of
materials such as the Palm Beach Police Reports and Probable Cause Affidavits. These
documents, like the search warrant affidavit, were replete with material misstatements and
omissions, one of the most glaring of which was the reference in the Police Reports to the
discovery of a "sex toy" in Mr. Epstein's trash. Through the execution of the search warrant, it
was discovered that the "sex toy" purportedly found in a trash pull was in fact only a piece of a
broken salad fork. Despite this discovery, Det. Recarey, bent on painting the facts to support Mr.
Epstein's prosecution, never took any steps to correct the Police Report and note the innocent
nature of the item.
Petite Policy
We have previously submitted extensive materials regarding the role the Petite Policy
should play in this matter. Rather than restate our position, we would like to discuss it in detail
at the meeting,
Conclusion
This case started as and should end as a state matter. It involves local issues which are
best addressed by state law. The statutes identified were never intended to be applied in
circumstances such as these, where the federal interests intended to be redressed by the statues
you too will see
are not present. We hope that after a full and candid discussion with your office
We are prepared to address any of the
the inadvisability of proceeding with a federal indictment.
additional issues you wish to raise. We are also
subjects touched on above and welcome any
oral presentation on all the issues we have raised herein or
prepared to make a fuller written or
any other lingering concerns you have.
P-01 1945
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA
EFTA00226733
Vex Off ICt• Of
GERALD B. Lzrrcoturr, P.G.
Jeffrey Sloman, Esq.
Matthew Mcnchcl, Esq.
Andrew Louric, Esq.
A. Marie Villafafla, Esq.
Office of the United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
June 25, 2007
Page 19
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. We look forward to meeting on June 26,
2007. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
truly yours
rtjieotuclk...0
Gerald I3. Le co
cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq.
Roy Black, Esq.
Alan Dershowitz, Esq.
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011946
EFTA00226734
Villatina, Mn Mad C. (USAFLS)
From: trivia. »Wow (liSAFISI
Sent lAwday..linte 25,2007 4.30PM
To. Manche& 14•Ww« (USAFIS)
Co Wain. Arai Mane C (O*Ft SI
Sub)ect. Thoughts en lefewaill tear
Weaker point, pages 9.t0. Section 2122(b). The argument that tit was meant to be Ignited to We neonet Krot
persuasne. srxe congress used we language "mail any (witty ot intestate co•nmetw is Ow hest
charge ase the man cletenitble lar te<leal MTV tit
Pages 74). Section 1591' the language meardets effect on interstate commerce is broad and the argument that this es
far outside the intent of the stalt/te rf not ow twine. They want to wake this teurd like a Cale Ol a local widen swig
a <ell girl that offers nciederal Interest It:I (otter: if more thankful - eit eato Item into a btlanesf:hey ate om
wivolvedIr and there er vies tteir tenkes These are not galt who are «hewn.. giving erotic massage, for fronts.
Net hatacarhe * PTO that pays other girls to be sub-Dimes Once a prostitute Ofterwled to late sub pm& he charges
roles 'into toe ase and Pay, for the seven If the prostitute does not want CO provide tempts anymore, he tum, back
.nto the pimp end gruel them the chance to wake saner ty Isecoewg tutethwen
Stronger Pointe: pages 10.12. Section 2423(0) they her of a number of things that I think a coon would find
Penal/of on the hid. of travel 'with the purpose of Mira In Alit se*. We only have le prow it wit ore of the
OurDOSes. but most circuits havedefined that as 'a WM cant or motivating purpose of the ravel won Hate or foreign
bounden's...Is to have legal sanyl aci"ily" and thai the sex was rot 'reerely incidental to the Vave: Our preel
on purpose n, rat he eels massages every brae he comes to Floral...and makes ammetwents Stole he leaves they.
on tre hand. has a pretty strong argument that (owe Isa resident with nano big stand"' ties to DOW dead'
Mt Warta, mad be that MIL"( dine*, a theatre refatteltOn$ before he lens We to come to his hone does rot mete
the done, or °metre a lintant tif rotraut purpose or the ildstand the stew is eve woe respect to massages
we in turna' arga Mat Over time he set up a network of illegal keel weedflatfeee recruits that wo.ild be difficult to
duplicate lerryiihete ase she accordingly mat the lL,ry would be ran the opooelonety to pity ire <ewe _non that at
to Inn effort and et *gal nature. the massages mutt NytjtCDa inistrating edam of Mt travelWe are not assured
pr CHfirs to ow pry on the Pont and i have rot teen a rate that O On point 'Whale I titt they make a good point
about centres. threes the statute wiser Mete 11 foyer travel, bur not charting it with respect to domestic
arguably that is beta lie there is not state crlmna %Wem to fag back on we., Arnentans travel abroad
S Sea« 2421' here we have to not only prove purpose of travel was to engage in Sexual at t, dat that (Osten
caused no offend to travel with the intent for her to have Regal sea (dostitutbal with wain.. girl I am not to
much persuaded by the,, arierwet that sewer 2421 caws should rob apple hwe because 't it meant to be '.mined to
those who to prostitution rags Intern was basically runnel a sine: prosutution ring with him as rna soleaostorner
and .les ht rem, ' • this Maw.° that Astinguithes eh. cow from the type Olcase the defense wanes to
present it tote . Mewed that when she traveled we, han he had the enrol that she would engage in
snail acts wife moth« On tor ranee wit be deficult
The SearchWarnint Were theft orkfcant orroMans and nistepretentatorts in the ',Meet. at they Sege, Are tee
fruit of the search in jeopardy and, a so. how would thee affect the strength of ow case,
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011947
EFTA00226735
Ltd' tu0 .244CAIYU 0:r ti 44);,U kat.
4e.o/114,4
c,) were tianctik- ujikun tdvr, rnd
(2.)
v..p-ctor I122 ord. ctAcciA.0044:*
(4-ifee exual2_ rcu-locip4
kincLocicat •
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011948
EFTA00226736
Constitutionality
1) Commerce else is suMir justification
-Harms U.S. , 272 2d 478, 481 (4" Cir. 1959) (addressing 2422(a)).
2) Lack of de i nse re mistakeff age does not violate Due Process.
U.S. Ransom, 942 2d 775 ( I0" Cir. 199I )
-Also .S. v. Juvenile Male, 211 I. 3d 1169 (9" Cir. 2000)
3) Congress has the power to enact a comprehensive regulatory scheme that regulates purely
local activities that ha a substantial effect on interstate commerce, including the trafficking of
women and girls U S s, 476 F. 3d 1176 (II" Cir. 2007)
-where defendant used hotels that serve interstate travelers and distributed
condoms that traveled in interstate commerce, defendant also loses has "as
applied" challenge.
4) Congress has the power to regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, even if
those instrumentalities are used only for interstate activities pursuant to the Commerce Clause.
Evans.
5) Section 2422(b) is not unconstitutionally vague. U.S. I Bolen, 136 Fed. Appx. 325 (111°
Cir. 2005).
6) Section 2422(b) is not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague. U.S.' Thomas, 410'.
3d 1235 (10" Cir. 2005) •
Also U.S. I Dhingra, 311 I. 3d 557, 161-63 (9" Cir. 2004); U.S.' Meek, 366
I 3d 705, 720-22 (9" Cir. 2004); U.S. PantiI, 338 3d 1299, 1300-01 (II" Cir. 2003); U.S.
Bailey, 228 F. 3d 637, 639 (6" Cir. 2000).
P-011949
Case No. 08-80736-C V-MARRA
EFTA00226737
eattWithentiali
th umse
Ct . S.An r•&it EIVVY,_ LOHen
1/66) Caaldocatitt 2 42 2 (04)•
afht dote rce
Ise. &WS WV'
Le jail&
Sand
AAR 83:42-at
71. 5 coi l"
Cjes elf-j) r ..
1.11 t.' .4 3 'VI CU !ILI
Cg HA Cie. ZOCA
- .
Sat
CO'llal InA4 Wt PAS. 46 artaCirtip L cs
uniniun
g-ht•ta 4rot
fortli bota. 0111- 4 4-ok hewt Subs/aad
44J - rkethot.+- CEPVAIWei uhdu-d
taibanN 4 La n
U. S v. euart,S ) ) ;tic. F34 irn at. Cw- .
2001)
rnicisitestomite Sotto-4
4rzur0.0 5 o.ed at:eiribtat4 uncto r ks
_ 3Siak aveutyaret
also /2.9..a_Jesa /14 4 srptact chator
41) Co' tots kw"
taniitrunbaday“ Urn -egret ,
ir on
Case No. 08-80736-CV-NIARIM 1950
EFTA00226738
.11
;rri-msiata., or-Rviiite -Rt\ Ciwy\r"o4-eit
0.1,04t
sx.fig,
CAS v. 6o1u4 ,3c. Fed,
-
32-5tid-HIC-;/-1 2.-cos • •
C.) 2-t -12-02) HofcmcoY7qi
ark -i lk-Oa a! V . LG.S. n
F. '/ ,tz35 C/ 2.00.5) .
-A&6LS- _F 34 .551
.0,11 . 2004-0 (A. S. >l Magi.L3 4„. . 705.,
fm.)-42-0f-FIA. 2c0-0 U.,S. v:_esun 11 5,,/3 Y Ad
/24.; i3osa VIA_ Cir. S v., 8 .41,
22-g- 3.1 63 '7, Of CSC Cir. 2.0a1,3„_
• „ , • _
w02, 01.4,1
\I! , , is;fig
/14
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011951
EFTA00226739
Definitions of Inducument
I) U.S. I Murrell, 3681. 3d 1283, 1287 (II" Cir. 2004). In a charge of violation §2422(b),
the term "induce means to stimulate the occurrence of"or to" cause the minor the engage in sexual
activity."
2) Harms' U.S., 272 12d 478 (4" Cir. 1959). In a charge of violating what is now
§2422(a) (whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in
interstate commerce... to engage in prostitution... shall be fined, etc."), the Fourth Circuit ed
that a single telephone call invitation to a former prostitute, asking him to return to to
resume her prostitution, was sufficient.
-The fact that the prostitute has previously expressed her desire to return to
or that she paid her own fare, was immaterial.
-"An affirmative directive act [like buying a ticket or doing the transporting) is not
involved. The inducement in and of itself, without consideration of intent and
with no further direct act, is the moving cause ofwhat follows. The inducement may
be any offer sufficient to cause the woman to respond. The inducement
sets in motion the successive acts that constitute the crime. (p. 481)
3) U.S.1 Reed, 96 1. 2d 785(2d Cir. 1938). Evidence was sufficient to find that defendant
induced woman to travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution, even though woman
claimed she had always wanted to go to Ncw York and she paid her own way.
4) LaPage 1 U.S., 146 1 2d 536 (8" Cir. 1945). Evidence that defendant called victim,
who was one of his regular prostitutes who was away (out of state) on vacation, and asked her to
return because another prostitute was leaving was sufficient to prove inducement to travel in
interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution.
5) Prdjun 1 U.S., 237 1 799 (6" Cir. 1916). Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant
of enticing girl to travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution even if there "is no
evidence" that the girl knew of the purpose for which she was entice to go [from one state to the
other)... if the defendant put the girl in question in such a frame of mind that she wanted to go and
did go, if coupled with it was the purpose on the part of the defendant that the girl should engage in
prostitution [when she got to destination), then that is an offense against the statute.
6) U.S. Thomas, 410 1 3d 1235 (10" Cir. 2005). Section 2422(b) requires only that the
defendant inten to entice a minor, not that the defendant intend to commit that underlying sexual
act.
Entice = beguiling by arousing hope or desire; to lure.
Induce = leading or moving by persuasion or influence; to prevail upon.
Persuade = causing someone to do something by means of entreaty, argument, or reasoning;
to convince.
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011952
EFTA00226740
-1..s 4 tev(44.,e,tryvz.--1-
Iis:7
cp.a.s„. V, Ml.,<PrO, a•A 3A. :{2_13;(1 HP1 Ur
2.)GLO. Ina 4 vie io_liovt 2-,4-2:2-CO
uly
41Na_ cc_c_wrren.ei cyba it 4-7) ryu.no-
4t, .-
(2). ,{.lawns v. U.S. , 2.)2_ rad ,flo (ott-,
Cr. -Iq64) Ina 6-0..-• /, 4, irk,/
v7aA., f7142-2-Cu) (CA_Jeowt, tiinowf
aSti.042-0, et"..N.J2-0, CV C.O.e.,14.0 aryl
t:PS.A.LO fp imr-cl ISO-SAWY_CD,Th 'Ufrek
• . 411.11 ‘t
it"10(t *1.4-* C,vt.u.4" c.t.da-rn4;.e.d
a c,d! wwita-6a4... 4-D
a fy,,D5 to tArr7lb
11.frria. 10 reA2U•ne, AA-6a,, we:L/3
kyr} ye.) vAe.
pvtvieu- - fixe-e4g (7(eau--4 tb
yr.?kkr? •tiz ire k o i ihti- i 2J
tow31-1-0-i
CRerniiire, dux-eine—el* ck-4.-+"
Dike i 04--
ztsra=1
bevy-1
tn_ cud 4 Lmi-geml
4, r0
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-01 I qs
EFTA00226741
O0A4 ;5 th k niaritly ca ? 4- (A.,ho- aciAx. •
daft., .5,46ziuNt.
- ,..ock-4,),LJ4_162 ets04 , 71fuz
.5/az) Cezm;tiOn_-_...11na
acts Wics-t co-6'13u_
a (L.S..v Rya, qc, F',24_785/2At EyokAcx
BedEWevut- irukta. 14.4
win-YIP-% 4.k.t.ka U4 1,404Cal_tcstrfpNivW3Vhl
rligusticvN evtb., IqcytvAaf'vron
Alldt "47:54i4- Ct tT2 A.ktA,
04-Aeltv u. 5 Nf6 F Zd 5 %;"Crii °1 Cr. Pr/ 4 5E
..6agen-c4 44f -A
- IAA) cox°,
-- ors- xt, 14i.2 PTW4 peu.--..pftztiokSAa adlo Gazo way
ArekeAtitvg.2.(erd, euaki.d kti/- fa 31,44hy?_
_ ppoghhata. wax) ..Ria.8. 24fri....e4-4-
Jo floa_ AluxArisit 6 -frs4,4 A.A
- --cmoeutx cif 4024-i4-u3scrL ,
IALs 2,17-F. 711 ((,f& Gr. 190.1
Awes Euid-%t.<- _extzt_5441,6.a."4 Iospnu-c-f-
&4-*/ inxecZ' ott onlePs" 4-(, co+w-u.t.ft
-eriffe* wuk iFAre "is no
tuidso‘c÷ *0;1 1 ff,spi krami- et. +V% pttrigesk
uola s.dAXL0 eaahti 4t)
iitt-tb- lb *kit ode`arJ . 114
:an alien (4- twci-t
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011954
EFTA00226742
trgistnetki-
Cg
liar sLit a( -to t avol.S0( r , •.4-
carGot
wiftk wca iin fweve. ot, -fea.. pref
411 H.e4
a4do,
Au'1 4 Skulat 4...qcw_ in ty,o
to ottotl'eaT le....n i-' 4-' 1
pas ooft,,a,
4 a RS Lc -Th'vb°, 44to r si
. st.ai0A ziezza)
C. ibctipd tt &at a
- criatcy+ H.&
I nd- itai *U icA,
irkard in (and ik cdrcaltetiiieti Pala gat
rd-ict rbit-itii Lit3 Gan . tt\ %net ercAsq're 40 hut
Induct:- ftaoluicl ar wiorini_ ffisetan or
WeLma ; 41) prtm«Ci
PteSuagh z clua-oae-AS:reiura <t. 1.1,1= 11
rielanS 4 whitall Ore, CTY-
ko coettirteSL .
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRN1 1955
EFTA00226743
Motive to Travel Cases
1) U.S.' Garcia-M234 F.3d 217 (51° Cir. 2000).
Facts: Defendant took his 13-year-old stepdaughter to Mexico and obtained fake identification dots
to allow her to travel. Defendant raped the girl twice in Mexico and was charged and convicted of
violating 242304.
Issue: Defendant argues that government must prove that his dominant motive for traveling was to
engage in sex with a minor.
Holding: The instruction that "it was sufficient for the government to prove that one of the
defendant's motives in traveling las to engage in a sexual act with a minor "was sufficient".
2) U.S.' I1oschouer, 2007 WL979931 (11th Cir. Apr. 3, 2007).
Facts: Defendant began a sexual relationship with his daughter when she was 13. In March 2003,
the victim gave birth to defendant's son. Defendant continued to have sex with her. In Sept. 2003,
defendant was arrested in Texas. Victim wrote a bad check to get defendant out on bond and they
fled. Victim asked to stay behind, but defendant refused. Defendant was arrested while they were
driving through Georgia when defendant was arrested for shoplifting. Victim testified that they were
on their way to North Carolina where defendant was looking for work. Victim also testified that she
believed that, if they stayed in Georgia long enough, she and defendant would have had sex.
Defendant was charged with violating 2423(a) and 2432(b).
Issue: Defendant raised the issue of "the purpose" instruction and the sufficiency of the evidence.
Holding: (1) The jury was properly instructed that the government does not have to show that
engaging in criminal sexual activity with a minor was defendant's only purpose or even his primary
purpose, but it must have been tins of the motives or purposes of the travel. In other words, the
government must show that the defendant's criminal purpose was not merely incidental to the travel.
(2) Based upon the length of the sexual relationship and defendant's refusal to leave victim behind,
the jury could reasonably infer that defendant intended to have sex with victim before the conclusion
of their trip and that one of the motivating purposes of requiring victim to accompany him was to
facilitate their sexual relationship.
3) U.S. I Reiner, 397 I Supp. 2d 101 (D. Me. 2005). This case discusses the forfeiture
of assets related to a "massage parlor"/ "health club" that was a front for prostitution. The Court
wrote: "The fact that a few customers were content to have only a massage does not alter the overall
purpose of the operation."
4) U.S.' Hitt, 473 3d 146 (5" Cir. 2006). Co-defendants Hitt and Causey met AV, a
13-yr-old boy and befriendeI him. In October 2002, they took AV to dinner and touched his
buttocks. Some time later, the defendants invited AV to a football game in Louisiana (across state
lines). AV was to share a room with another boy, but, due to a "mix up" was made to share a room
with Hitt and Causey. AV was sexually assaulted by the defendants that night and the sexual activity
continued for about a year. The defendants were charged with violating 2423(h), 2423(a), and
2422(a).
Issue: The defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence.
Holding: The government must prove that engaging in sexual activity was "one of the efficient
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011956
EFTA00226744
Motive to Travel Cases - Page 2
and compelling purposes of the travel." Evidence related to the "grooming process" was relevant
to whether the defendants had the illicit intent necessary under 2423(b).
5) U.S.' Scisum, 32' 3d 1479 (10th Cir. 1994). For a violation of 2423(a), the
government must prove that the defendant had formed the intent to have the victim engage in
prostitution before the defendant transported or moved a person in interstate commerce. The
government does not have to prove that prostitution was the sole purpose of the transportation.
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011957
EFTA00226745
ACtive ,t) Tro,vtiCam
u.S. 6c4- .—/..cpe_ , 234- F. 34. (54€--1
CAr. 2000)
r q.c) s, n took ,i3-T-old• sic.fda÷,
:JP I' co Aterd
qts c .to ol,na
1 -twice o44- cam Cini!PA4 Q(
2423(b
avck cAroicitot- c,F tf;olcxtv
.ry,wok
Ls5,2-..• 4? ctetriA. 44-04-
ryptiy-c.
invet,44,01 evylci(ur s wielc-
tomhav- .
cr6-61...civerv‘ #42.* ,•, •0? Su-144;o..4
CAerro-nreard-, -tb I/eve +inak tIAL. Crlz, O.'
vnOt 14.4 hak.44:412 °Jag :t1) 0 , 0,0,9(e. efr-•
act viw-Nk•
4u. C.c. e. i-los&1)outf, .zoo • va:ci -nci3i (1 Cif.
Apv. 3,209,7
rad-% I•opolooN, re.1.0-tievechk.r..64.Oteh
V•v:. - 13 . 1144,-rvin
,kACNNA Opre &S son
1/0-1,k sgx. 6;1
WriiNv4-01- .a.o.
2°0 3 p, u o-s-re.akv. "fey
cit
L.o look_,C--"d 4,‘) e (51j-
vcv‘-. ackuk. 31,
cY\ i7" 4"
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011958
EFTA00226746
:/A.IPEAiekok, 4.,320(;,a4-1-
rd:44fni a _
__4cAticuotitkiimEtuttz. Irsitv
NorAt<orcl;
Vis.E,, AO itzhVgA_Alazi-
iteo 464,if *am trod
eArs46, • 544
-- - 4> 0-10.0 adult uaix viotaiin4 _2a13(9 )_oci
_AssvA:._LN_Jm4 1:44Pis 61, "
ipetk_i4sa_ - s,444ti a db. +IA•13 .
,Aa:Lo 4atopulattaSiloAckal 4412#
OJsto
4Psuat_041,01
6s!.1 .)044.1_44,4^"‘
frivroan 4,44_,Afity2th-0__•
4,4dirw. of- 41444r.41_4c0m tbsfra,
014Ak_Algh&spicktlente&__Ars_skolk)
.9=
.4eAL
14_cbgakhIna ,APA:14_,14r.tuitAl
1.2 ,d i'do-ti1440
V 12/11/;44,14-44.)ni
JO. :LigtiOrgAnkLINIKk(AAn ileLc.
_ AAVAip' rt .lf^•1' a••L 4 iht-hictivekv) tx44-Fcas__Ak
• _ 41171,47-44-_
Z=t- A*rpc=tV
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011959
EFTA00226747
Wirt 4.6 TroJet)
p•
•S • v_feiru-"t 39'1k Lief,. iS? .1bi •
Kt • 2-00.5),11uo Co.hte
fierea tect,ecto cOmueog.
_ _ ;Am> hedei Yeuk:let° 0.....tekeye.
kreg, .≤:41 _ deeLeyytt
• ...a.Licr_Yeae. cgiellecéattal.'
e • " -Fee). 4'13 ( -511,1
avd- r1:141-
/3 o oecl
le Ctizeixe !Doz., /ad AVio geivo.e-
Lt!") teeikei- 1120 bu.Aeci-.S. Saw firit Mr;
AV lb et 6elbolt '
Ap...;.4teéle (or-PeSS &hit. AVelX1O ta
efeee ofreitAv- hµ.t,â4...t
2/.0 (.1,` wad, vrooto. 40 eve= e ,
..u.ete‘ NJ- cre4-Cimwel.. AV Lea» -SViel4-Dit`
eelcu.a.itot._ Wm_ As ?tee re 01^01`
wlcoAtir›..4.d. kw- al.e0A-
qie't steve0. ozho
114_ ceased u-re Vic/Afir,
e.e623(..b), .2x#7.3(44;e .rd reez2-&-).
7/m. At -sch•decAa.tuj dg
imkesse...L.—
eolce feerneed»awe /KM Irecaf
let ...T4.44.4.4 arh to:Le 4 O's-e
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011960
EFTA00226748
1A, *44,4- 0.4 cavy:w_,w, i-VOLtd
riytwa -" he -vide/vex 0-cloaca( 4c, "
plivey. MASAO"' We- 4S
A2A v61 (11Z64-et . Ltinck*: AZZ,3 Le)
‘,.
--r—aisar, 3Z P. 34,
tA..5. /99q)
_t_o4itAta 4
_For 0- /2/
if‘c 1"401.
• stRAvint.4&_vitsiiy,
14,‘, 4n, Avr....2er-icat 0-•
____Ariffkr,k et
* ewe yAt
posE .44—iku_
•r
,
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011961
EFTA00226749
Third-Party Liability
1) U.S. Pisman, 443 13d 912 (70 Cir. 2006).
Pisman and Wilkerson were involved in asexual relationship and planned for Pisman
to travel from Iowa to Illinois to meet Wilkerson and others to engage in sex. Wilkerson arranged
for the other sex partners - some of whom were minors - via the Internet. Pisman was aware that
some were minors.
Charges: Ct. I- Conspiracy to travel interstate to have sex with minors 18 USC §§ 2423(b) & (c).
Ct. 2 - Substantive charge of 2423(b)
Ct. 3 - Use of interstate commerce to entice a minor 2422(b)
Issue: The government urged a theory of co-conspirator liability as the basis of Pisman's guilty on
the substantive offenses. Pisman was acquitted of Count I and convicted of Count 3.
Holding: These are merely inconsistent verdicts, which is not grounds for a motion for judgement
of acquittal.
2) U.S. I Strewth 185 Fed. Appx. 841 (11th Cir. 2006): Telephone calls to Costa Rica
Taboo Vacations to arrange trip to Costa Rica to meet with underage prostitutes is sufficient to prove
violations of 2423(c), 1591(a), and 2422(b).
3) U.S. I Bolen, 136 Fed. Appx. 325 (11° Cir. 2005). Defendant challenged §2422(b)'s
applicability w crc defendant did not communicate directly with victim-child but only
communicated (via Internet and phone) with parent of purported child.
"We held that §2422(b) encompasses conduct where a defendant arranges to have sex with
a minor through communications with an adult intermediary, including an adult law enforcement
agent posing as a parent of a minor child."
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011962
EFTA00226750
4)UA ie
_.ltd -54.,tto dstrxe,_44 3 Fad,9!
(Wig Cir. .2_00‘)
Campshot-
Picrmin ittako-sm-, tuck, iba=
eruzek_,Legi64-40A de/1oz "tr> cl.-#24e
tvilleau Yr".4_1.-./
Caw - uilbOan_ _ _
tue.H- ', Awl's —via irpy.trut ttsnauqtata.
.414,9 witiz gemeghs.„
t;Ilepsht.tk.
knee. cklYtt lat4iteT 6 (AK_ 01434)4.)
. 5.11ito
44 " z4
kovi
4L,riet Il.k, dT 214-2-36.9i,)
cx inw-VSY _
.„40it.647(
: 71ne 90,0^rirrIv aYAWLS
CaC,Cnisk;adav az) (11ta
tn
f4.1
ca,
Pulhalk2o lhe.
ztoetd 214t4 '-<
firgrar• win J. mat. _._
caszk—Ack et, 3
arc
0 tal
.A4z
e9(.
°.czt
.t :.ettu
7.01.i
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-01 1903
EFTA00226751
et-ti a _
_cceinRici,T2.6a) ci
iv 6cel- 47? ierv2J-
11)
KArt c2E 15g I Co.),
.„.
. (.7
.
3)-( .S_it• 40/4tqf /SG AA—A*4— 32-5
Cir. .74sos) . that-Mei-1v( t 211.22-07.) )
ARiathfs.- .6 oka„-AnektztV-srfx4AisaLd<-
1411/1 - kg.4
Gita ltri-urria AlaniockANLIAPiYA
pLugatt ckosk.
we.A34.4tAti. *a)" t 2s1-2,-2_(h) -e-J/Icompi2,0
cstp _ bokilke_ At451,-,610.44
- liortzv flA .4 .WIA.inae%
CA'ilk-ata--a-Atat ivikErAidjaktl ),
__Lam pos1,1(.1 co A ia_km:Alm
chtio
L.
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011964
EFTA00226752
Knowledge of Agc Issue
I) U.S.' Griffith, 284 13d 338 (2d Cir. 2002). Government does not have to prove
knowledge of age of violations of 2251(a) or 2423(a).
2) U.S.' Scott, 1993 WL 280323 (6th Cir. 1993). Knowledge that a girl is under 18 years
of agc when transported is not part of the proof required of the goverrunent in order to sustain a
conviction under §2423.
3) U.S.' Taylor, 239 13d 994 (9'" Cir. 2001). Government does not have to prove
defendant's knowledge victim was andi 18 years of agc in prosecution under §2323(a).
-also U.S. Hamilton, 456 2d 171 (3d Cir. 1972).
-also U.S. Jones, 471 F. 3d 535 (4'" Cir. 2006).
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-0I 1965
EFTA00226753
r5jLaaWg .E. 2f:!IO
frEforre._ 14/1401
, i3,(O Y701- 4-1416._ 4
--4-at—fr---qnlasikos of 226 IQ dr 2423‘,).
A its—v. sc.-0;11/3_4,x 2:037a ath 4-
Krau4k
nci-po4ifLick els y1,1
.00vii,e,4,, & ..swieu;e, _42—
ccvivichi _2a.231
3. ilA•5• v T 23/ P-3.(
ot cceLot 94y CPA
iegm
II4 6 ,) •
sit/W-vichal
i•fr.) 10224.Latiri-{AinAle--_
§ 211
-deo U.S. tionwittivl, VE4K 2d 171 (Er
-72- •
-ago iA ...1v4.0, *71 53s MA G.:
3004
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011966
EFTA00226754
Law Or/ iCCS or
GERALD 13. LEFcourrr, Y.G.
•MOt SSIONAL COORPORATIO
NB CAST ie." STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORE 10021
GERALD B. LCFCOURT HONE
WICOortaskourUari.Com I/ zJ 7370400
FAcSIMILE
421211388.6102
smcnyi. C. RtiCti July 6, 2007
nichlatektmetra corn
RENATO C. STABILE
ada•Okoltostaa. corn
FAITH A. FRIEDMAN
Mearnageskeurstet teen
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
rey Epstein
ear T essrs. oman, T enc e an uric and Ms. Villafaila:
We %Tice as counsel to Jeffrey Epstein to follow-up on our meeting on June 26,
2007. We thought the meeting was extremely productive and appreciate your giving us
the opportunity to engage you on the facts, law and policy that will inform any decision
you make on how and whether to proceed.
I. 18 U.S.C. §2422(6) Has No Applicability to the Facts Here.
Even assuming the facts as you believe them to be, as demonstrated below, a
prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) would violate the explicit terms of the statute, pose
insurmountable constitutional barriers, and be unprecedented, unwise, and utterly
inappropriate. This statute, with its mandatory minimum sentence' was designed to reach
The statute in effect during the events at issue carries a mandatory five-year
period of
incarceration. The current ten-year mandatory minimum was instituted in 2006.
Exhibit 33
EFTA00226755
toes Or e•CES 0•
GERALD B. LEPCOURT. P.C.
those who deliberately, knowingly, and intentionally target and exploit children through
the Internet. Though the literal language may superficially apply to a wider variety of
behaviors, we submit that the statute cannot properly be used to prosecute what have
traditionally been viewed as state offenses, even if some facility or means of interstate
commerce can be said to have been used by someone at some point during the course of
events.
1. Congress's Purpose
Section 2422(b), the so-called "Internet Luring Statute", addresses online
enticement of children. The subsection was included in Title I of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, entitled "Obscenity and Violence", after the Senate
Judiciary Committee held a hearing regarding child endangerment via the Internet. See
H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104.458, at 193 (1996), quoted in United States' Searcy, 418 I3d
1193, 1197 (11ih Cir. 2005); see also K. Seto, "Note: How Should Legislation Deal with
Children and the Victims and Perpetrators of Cyberstalking?" 9 Cardozo Women's L.J. 67
(2002).
In enacting the statute, Congress recognized that young people were using the
Internet in ever-increasing numbers, and it was proving to be a dangerous place.
According to a DOJ study, one in five youths (aged 10 to 17) had received a sexual
approach or solicitation over the Internet in the previous year. One in 33 had received an
"aggressive sexual solicitation", in which a predator had asked a young person to meet
somewhere or called a young person on the phone. U.S.D.O.J., Office of Justice
Programs, 0 VC Bulletin," Internet Crimes Against Children" (12/2001);
www.oip.usdoi.gov/ove/publications/bulletons/intemet "2 2001/intemet _2_01 6.html.
Congress saw that, with so many children online, the Internet created a new place
— cyberspace — where predators could easily target children for criminal acts. Use of the
Internet. which occurs in private, and the secrecy and deception that acting in cyberspace
permits, eliminated many of the risks predators face when making contact in person, and
presented special law enforcement problems that are difficult for any local jurisdiction to
tackle. The mandatory minimum sentence for a violation of this section was increased
from five years to ten years in 2006, by virtue of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act of 2006, which also eliminated any statute of limitations. See 18 U.S.C.
EFTA00226756
• WI VICC• Dr
GERALD B. LEECOURT. P.C.
§3299.2 The law was named in memory of Adam Walsh who, 25 years earlier, had been
abducted from a department store and was later found murdered, and whose parents had
become advocates for missing children. In his signing statement, President Bush noted
that it increased federal penalties for crimes against children, imposing "tough mandatory
minimum penalties for the most serious crimes against our children." 2006
U.S.C.C.A.N. S35, 2006 WL 3064686 (emphasis added). The five-year mandatory
minimum it replaced was itself established as part of the PROTECT Act of 2003, another
law designed to strengthen the government's ability to deal with certain dangerous sexual
predators who exploited children in ways the states had been unable to address fully.;
2. General Overview
It must be remembered that §2422(b), by using the phrase "any sexual activity for
which any person can be charged with a criminal offense": in some sense incorporates
all the sex offense laws of all 50 states, in all their variety and in all their ambiguity. This
in itself raises questions of the utmost seriousness, implicating fairness and the due
process clause. It also constitutes an extreme example of federal pre-emption, or, more
precisely, the wholesale annexation of the enforcement responsibility of each of the 50
states' sex-related crime statutes — whether felony, misdemeanor or violation — wherever
there has been use of the ever-present wires. To make every state sex "offense" involving
a person under 18 potentially into a mandatory minimum ten-year federal felony without
any statute of limitations is certainly not what Congress had in mind when it enacted
§2422(b).
I Other federal crimes with ten-year mandatory minimum involve very serious acts.
See, e.g., 18
U.S.C. §2113(e) (bank robbery where a person is killed or kidnapped); 18 U.S.C. §924
(involving
discharge of firearm).
3 Section 2422(b) has always
carried a substantial penalty. When first enacted, the maximum
sentence it permitted was ten years. Pub.L. 104-104, Title V, Sec. 508, 110
Stat. 137. After that,
the maximum was increased to 15 years. Pub.L. 105-314, Title I, sec,
102, 112 Stat. 2975 (Oct.
30, 1998 to April 29, 2003).
4 A phrase which, by itself, and in the context of the remainder
of the statute, raises mind-
numbing questions as to what, exactly, is proscribed.
EFTA00226757
LAW OrrICCO or
GERALD B. LEFCOURT. PC.
The bulk importation of complex bodies of state law is highly problematic, and
strongly counsels that such matters should be left to the states except in those rare
circumstances where both a federal interest is clear and weighty, and the states are for
some reason incapable of acting. Like issues of family law, these issues are
quintessentially of state concern within our federal system.
State laws regarding both sexual activity and the age of consent to engage therein
are hugely varied, reflecting different histories, values, politics, and personalities. See
Richard A. Posner & Katharine B. Silbaugh, A Guide to America's Sex Laws (1996). The
various and shifting societal reasons underlying those laws, and the societal pressures
operating in the area, where sexual mores change over time, complicate the matter even
further. See generally Richard A. Posner, Sex and Reason (1992). The history of the
Mann Act confirms the caution with which the federal government should approach this
entirc area. For example, historically, the Act was used by some prosecutors in some
jurisdictions to prosecute acts — such as a man traveling with his paramour — which, we
submit, never implicated a legitimate federal concern. See generally U.J. Langum,
Crossing the Lines: Legislating Morality Under the Mann Act (1994).
Even where there is broad agreement that certain conduct should be criminalized,
the various states treat the very same conduct differently; to apply such laws selectively
by different federal prosecutors would undermine further what uniformity does exist. In
New York, for example, a 50 year old man who patronizes a 15 year old prostitute is
guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. New York Penal Law §230.04. If §2422(b) were read
expansively, then such person would face a 10-year mandatory minimum if he used the
telephone to set-up his date with the young prostitute even if the date never happened.
And that would be so even if the prostitute were 17 (and despite the fact that in New
York the age of consent is 17, since prostitution is a "sexual offense" in New York).
Clearly, these are applications and outcomes Congress did not contemplate when it
enacted the law.
Instead, these are matters best left to state law and state law enforcement. In the
state, prosecutors and law enforcement authorities, who have far more experience dealing
with sexual crimes, can exercise their discretion as to whom to prosecute and for what
charges, taking into account both local attitudes and the wide range of circumstances that
may exist when sexual offenses, or possible sexual offenses, involving minors were, or
may have been, committed. That is particularly so since state laws generally permit the
exercise of sentencing discretion, allowing the punishment to fit both the crime and the
EFTA00226758
LAW OIIICCS or
GERALD B. LEPCOURT. P.C.
perpetrator. Section 2422(b), with its ten-year mandatory minimum is far too blunt a tool
to use in any circumstances except the narrow, clear-cut, and egregious circumstances
Congress had in mind when it enacted this law.5
Though §2422(b) is susceptible to multiple interpretations, it was designed to
address a specific a problem with which Mr. Epstein's case has nothing in common. I
stretched to reach beyond the core concern of the statute, a host of problems immediately
arise. A simple reading of the words of the statute leaves any reasonable reader with far
more questions than answers as to what is illegal. Any attempt to apply the statute to Mr.
Epstein's situation highlights the many problems of vagueness, overbrcadth, and simple
incomprehensibility lurking in or just below the statute's text.
3. The Statute's Text And Its Thrust
Section 2422(b) currently provides:
Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of
interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
States knowingly persuades, induces, entices or
coerces any individual who has not attained the age
of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual
activity for which any person can be charged with a
criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined
under this title and imprisoned not less than ten
years or for life.
The statutory language and reported decisions confirm the statute's important, but
narrow, focus: the luring of children over the Internet. Unlike 18 U.S.C. §§2241 er seq.,
'Penalties under state statutes criminalizing online enticement also vary widely. According to the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, though the offense can be a felony in all
states, 15 states permit misdemeanor sentences in some cases (generally where the victim is 14 or
older). Nineteen states classify online enticement as a felony, but grant judges statutory
discretion to sentence offenders to less than one year in prison
(missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry--en... 6/28/2007.
EFTA00226759
tat °ryas or
GERALD B. LEPCOLTRT. P.C.
§2422(b) does not establish any federal sex crimes with a minor. Section 2422's subject
is not sex or sexual activity or face-to-facc sexual exploitation of minors. Such behavior
remains a matter of state, not federal, concern. The plain language of the statute
mandates focus on the communication and demands that the knowing "persuasion",
"inducement", "enticement" or "coercion" be done "using the mail or any facility or
means of interstate . . .commerce" (emphasis added). Any other reading would violate
constitutional principles of fair warning, notice, lenity and due process. Additionally, any
broader reading would violate the clearly stated intent of Congress that enacted the law
and the President who signed it. It would also exceed the authority of Congress under the
Commerce Clause by federalizing virtually all state sex offenses involving people under
the age of 18.
Section 2422(b) defines a crime of communication, not of contact. It makes
unlawful a narrow category of communications, ones not protected by the First
Amendment. Both the attempt and the substantive crime defined by §2422 are complete
at the time when communication with a minor or purported minor takes place; the essence
of the crime occurs before any face-to-face meeting or any sexual activity with a minor,
and regardless of whether any meeting or activity ever occurs.
Turning the statute on its head by first looking at the alleged sexual activities and
then seeking to find a mailing, a use of the wires, or the involvement of another facility or
means of interstate commerce as a pretext for the invocation of federal jurisdiction would
be without precedent and make a narrowly-focused statute into virtually a complete
federalization of all state sex offenses involving minors.
4. The Statute Is Violated Only If A Facility Or Means Of Interstate
Commerce Is Used To Do the Persuading Or Inducing
Though the statute raises several difficult issues of construction, on one point it is
clear and unambiguous: To be guilty of a crime under §2422(b), the mail or a facility or
means of interstate commerce use to do the persuading or inducing. As the
Court wrote in United States v. 165 3d Appx. 586, 2006 WL 226038 (10th Cir.
2006), to prove a violation, the government must show "(1) the use of a facility of
interstate commerce; (2) to knowingly peisuade, induce, entice or coerce, as well as
the other elements. See also United States Bolen, 136 Fed. Appx. 325, 2005 WL
1475845 (I I d' Cir. 2005).
EFTA00226760
OI/ICCIS Of
GERALD B. LEMOURT. PC.
The statutory language can bear no other construction. The words "whoever,
using . .. knowingly persuades . . ." necessarily requires that the "whoever" must "use"
the interstate facility to knowingly persuade. That is, the word "using" is in the present,
not the past, tense. Thus, the "using" must occur at the same time as the "persuading". If
the statute meant otherwise, it could and would have been drafted differently: "whoever
having used the mail and knowingly persuades" or "whoever uses the mail and
knowingly persuades". But, as it is written, the actor must use the interstate facility to
persuade or to entice, or to attempt to do so; use of the instrumentality cannot be
incidental or peripheral.
Indeed, assuming, arguendo, that the grammar and structure of the statute would
allow another interpretation — which we believe it does not — nevertheless the obvious,
straightforward reading controls. Anything else would violate the rule of lenity, requiring
strict construction of penal statutes, as well as the requirement of fair notice guaranteed
by the due process clause. 6 As Thomas Jefferson put it in 1823: "Laws arc made for men
of ordinary understanding, and should therefore be construed by the ordinary rules of
common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties, which
may make any thing mean every thing or nothing, at pleasure".
According to one of the world's leading experts on grammar and specifically, the
syntax and semantics of verbs, these rules of "ordinary understanding" and "common
sense" dictate that
. . . an English speaker, reading the statute, would naturally
understand it as applying only to persuasion (etc.) that is
done while "using the mail" (etc.). To understand it as
applying to persuasion (etc.) done subsequent to the use of
6 We note that the
structure of this statute is radically different from the structure of §134I, the
mail fraud statute. There, the statute first describes the fraud and recognizes
the federal concern
by requiring, for purposes of executing such scheme or artifice, that
the defendant use the mail.
Section 2422(b) on the other hand defines the crime as using the mail to
The difference in the language and structure of the two crimes clearly knowingly persuade, etc.
shows that with §2422(b),
using the mail to knowingly persuade is the essence of the crime.
EFTA00226761
LAW or'g[• or
GERALD B. LEFCOURT. P.C.
the mail, phone, etc., would be an unnatural and
grammatically inaccurate reading of the language. 7
That the statute is so limited is also confirmed by the fact that prosecutors have
clearly understood this limitation. After conducting extensive research, we find no case
of a defendant being prosecuted under §2422(b) where he has used the intemet or the
telephone, and then, by some other means, such as personal contact, attempted to
persuade, induce, or entice. On the contrary, all §2422(b) prosecutions we have reviewed
are premised on a defendant's use of the intemet (or occasionally the text messaging on a
phone) as the vehicle of the inducement. See, e.g., United Stares' Murrel, 368 I3d
1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) (government must ... prove that Murrell, using the intemet,
acted with a specific intent to persuade a means to engage in unlawful sex).
In fact, we have reviewed every indictment filed in the Southem District of
Florida in which there is at least one allegation of a violation of §2422(b). To the extent
the facts could be discerned from the indictment, we found no case brought where the use
of the means of communication was remote from the persuading, coercion, etc.'
Such prosecutorial restraint is in full accord with the legislative intent, which, as
set forth above, was to go after intemet predators who use the means of communication
to persuade, coerce, etc. That the statute also makes reference to the mails and facilities
or means of interstate commerce other than the intemet does not suggest that the statutory
purpose was broader: it is a common modus operandi of intemet predators to continue to
pursue young people whom they first contact on the intemet. If the statute were read to
make it a crime to induce or persuade where the inducement or persuasion did not occur
over the wires, the statute would sweep within it conduct that Congress had no intention
of making a federal crime. Given the ubiquity of the telephone in modern life, especially
7 To confirm our view of the "plain meaning" of the words, we asked Steven Pinker, Johnstone
Family Professor at Harvard University's Department of Psychology and a noted linguist, to
analyze the statute to determine the natural and linguistically logical reading or readings of the
section. Specifically, we asked whether the statute contemplates necessarily that the means of
communication must be the vehicle through which the persuading or enticing directly occurs.
According to Dr. Pinker, that is the sole rational reading in the English language. See Letter
annexed at Tab "A" at 3.
Annexed at Tab "B" is a chart in which each of the cases and its relevant facts are listed.
EFTA00226762
Ortati OF
GERALD B. LEFCOUBT. PC.
in the lives of young people, de-coupling the "persuasion/enticement" element from the
"use of the interstate facility" would make virtually any sexual activity with a minor,
chargeable under state law, a federal offense — with no statute of limitations and a
mandatory ten-year minimum sentence.
Indeed, given that the interstate highway system is itself an avenue of interstate
commerce, United States' Home, 474 I2d 1004, 1006 (7th Cir. 2007), allowing a
prosecution wherever a means or facility of interstate commerce is used and a forbidden
inducement later occurs, would mean that anyone who used the interstate highways, and
then, at some other time, induced a minor face-to-face to engage in forbidden activity (or
attempted to do so), would be subject to the mandatory ten years. The complete
federalization of sex crimes involving children would have occurred, though there is no
indication whatsoever that such a sea change in the federal/state balance was intended or
is even needed.
Moreover, such an expansive reading, even if permissible, would very likely
exceed the Commerce Clause power as the Supreme Court presently construes it. In
United States' 514 U.S. 549 (1995), the Supreme Court struck down the Gun-
Free School Zones ct, holding that it exceeded Congress's Commerce Clause authority.
In so ruling, the Court reaffirmed a set of fundamental principles, including that the
powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined, and that this
"constitutionally mandated division of authority was adopted by the Namers to ensure
protection of our fundamen I rties." Id at 552, quoting Gregory' Ashcroft, 501
U.S. 452, 458 (1991). The majority concluded that the statute before the Court
"upsets the federal balance to adegree that renders it an unconstitutional assertion of the
commerce power." Id. at 580. In so ruling, the Court expressed its concern that an
overly expansive view of the interstate Commerce Clause "would effectively obliterate
the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely
centralized government." Id. at 557.
Making it clear that the Court meant what it said in five years later, in
United States v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), the Court strucR down
the civil remedy
provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, ruling that it, too, was beyond
Congress's Commerce Clause powers. Once again, the majority expressed concern
that
"Congress might use the Commerce Clause to completely obliterate the Constitution's
distinction between national and local authority." Id. at 615.
EFTA00226763
°evicts, or
tsw
G LE, B. LEI/COURT. P.C.
To the extent that §2422(b) criminalizes the use of the Internet (or telephone) by a
sexual predator to target a vulnerable minor and to convince, or to try to convince, her to
engage in conduc roscribed by law, the statute may not be unconstitutional on its face.
See United States Tykarsky, 446 I3d 458, 470 (3d Cir. 2006) (both §§ 2422(b) and
2423(b) "fall squarely Congress's power to regulate the first two categories of
activities described in ). The statute would, however, be plainly unconstitutional if
it were applied to situationslike Mr. Epstein's, where neither the telephone nor the
internet was used in that fashion, and where the use of the telephone was, at most, a
tenuous link in a chain of events that may, or may not, have preceded or followed sexual
contact with a minor.9 In other words, if the instrumentality of commerce is not the
vehicle used to facilitate the harm Congress is trying to address, but is simply a
"jurisdictional hook," the hook is too weakly connected to the problem (sexual crimes
against minors) to sustain the statute as a proper exercise of Commerce Clause power.
Questions about the nature of federalism, and, specifically, just how far the
federal government may go into matters of traditionally state concern, will continue to
arise and vill be answered case-by-case. As Justice O'Connor said in her dissent in
Gonzales Raid:, 545 U.S. I, 47 (2005), ". . . the task is to identify a mode of analysis
that allows Congress to regulate more that nothing . . . ancliess than everything. . ."
(O'Connor, J. dissenting). United States I Ballinger, 395 I3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2005),
illustrates the difficulty of the task. In that case, the deeply split en bane Court
considered whether and to what extent the Commerce Clause authority included the
power to punish a church arsonist who had traveled in interstate commerce to commit his
arsons.
Though clearly not settled, what is clear is that Congress's specification of a
jurisdictional element such as the use of an instrumentality or channel of interstate
9
As can be readily noted on the chart at Tab "B", to the extent discernable, every case brought
under §2422(b) in this district includes use of the internet. There are only four reported cases in
the Eleventh Circuit involving use of the phones only: three of them concern telephone calls to
travel agencies advertising overseas underage sex tours and involved explicit talk of sexual
activity with known minors. A fourth is United States v. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2007)
(1Ith Cir, 2007). But there, in facts far different from those presented here, the defendant
admitted using both a cellular telephone and a land-line telephone to entice Jane Doe to engage
in prostitution" (emphasis added). That admission makes Evans no precedent for a prosecution
here, since there is no evidence the phones were used "to entice".
EFTA00226764
Law OP.CCIP. or
GERALD B. LEFCOURT. P.C.
commerce does not, in and of itself, end the inquiry. Where the use of such
instrumentality is far removed from the conduct being targeted (in the case of §2422(b),
sexual exploitation of children), the lack of any basis for federal jurisdiction presents
itself squarely.
In Mr. Epstein's case, since the crime being considered (as Congress intended) is
the use of the intemet by intemet predators to target and lure vulnerable children to
engage in illicit sex, the law is arguably within Congress' Commerce Clause powers. But
Mr. Epstein's conduct would he outside the law's scope. If you were to contend that any
use of the telephone which is connected in any fashion to an act of sexual misconduct
with a minor is within the statute's scope, Congress would then have reached well into
traditional state spheres, and there is a powerful argument that Congress would have been
acting in excess of its Commerce Clause authority.
Elimination of Constitutional uncertainty regarding §2422(b) depends upon
confining it to situations where an instrumentality of interstate commerce has itself been
used for an immoral or injurious purpose. Statutes must be read to eliminate serious
doubts as to Constitutionality, as I ng as such a reading is not plainly contrary to the
intent of Congress United States X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 78 (1994),
citing Edward." DeBartolo Corp. Florida GulfCoast Building & Constr. Trades
Council, 485 U.S. 568 (1988). At e least, to eliminate questions as to its
constitutionality, §2422(b)'s reach must be limited to situations where there is a very
close connection between the use of an instrumentality of interstate commerce and the
persuasion or attempted persuasion that the statute makes a crime.
Moreover, even if, arguendo, the expansive reading of the statute would not
violate the Commerce Clause — which current case law strongly suggests it would —
nevertheless the federal interest in prosecuting sexual offenses involving minors where
the facility or means of interstate commerce was not the vehicle for committing
the crime
is so attenuated that no such federal prosecution should be brought.
Here, there is no evidence that Mr. Epstein himself ever persuaded, induced,
enticed, or coerced anyone under the age of 18 over the telephone
or Internet to engage in
prostitution or other illegal conduct. Any prosecution would
therefore have to be
predicated on a theory that he was criminally culpable for a
telephone call made by a
third party. Such a theory of vicarious liability
requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt
that the person making the telephone call and Mr.
Epstein shared the same criminal intent
EFTA00226765
• AW Off ICES or
GERALD B. LEPCOURT. PC.
and knowledge and, critically, that the shared inten an now e ge cx
the communication in question. Absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr.
Epstein had actual knowledge that the person making a telephone call would induce or
persuade a specific underage person during the telephone call to engage in unlawful
sexual activity or to engage in prostitution, there can be no federal crime.
If the telephone call in question were simply to schedule a topless massage, then
the call lacked the essential element of inducement, persuasion, enticement, or coercion.
If the telephone call in question was to schedule a topless massage (or even more) with a
woman whose age was not known by Mr. Epstein to be under 18, it also fails to satisfy
the requirements of §2422(b). If Mr. Epstein had not formed the intent to engage in
unlawful sexual activity as of the time of the communication (even if he did form the
intent thereafter), an essential element of the federal statute is again lacking. If the
person making the call had knowledge or a criminal intent or belief not fully shared by
Mr. Epstein (for example, Mr. Epstein did not know the telephone call was intended to
induce a minor to engage in unlawful activity), the essential clement of shared intent and
shared knowledge is again lacking.10 Finally, even if there were a call to schedule a
second meeting with someone who had previously been to the Epstein residence, this call
lacks the necessary element of persuasion, inducement, or enticing even if the person
receiving the call hoped or expected remuneration from the return visit. That is so
because the statute focuses on the content of the communication, not on any quidpro quo
that occurs thereafter at a meeting. The latter conduct is exclusively within the ambit of
state prosecution.
5. Other Reasons Why 4 2422(b) Does Not Apply
As we demonstrate above, this statute is addressed to those who purposely and
intentionally target children. Here, there was no such targeting. As the Sixth Circuit said
in rejecting a First Amendment challenge to the statute: "The statute only applies to those
who 'If owingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or entice, minors. United
States Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (611' Cir. 2000). See United States' Panfil, 338 I3d
1D Indeed, this last problem is best illustrated by any calls may claim to have made
to solicit persons to massage Mr. Epstein. Though Ms. may have known the actual ages
of the women whom she called at the time she called, and may therefore have known that one or
more was in fact under 18, she was clear in speaking to detectives that she never communicated
such information to Mr. Epstein. Rather, she understood Mr. E stein wanted massages from
women at least 18 years of age. (Video interview of on October 3, 2005).
EFTA00226766
LAM O , FICC• 0 ,
GERALD B. LEPCOURT. PC.
1299 (11th Cir. 2003) (scienter requirement discourages "unscrupulous enforcement" and
clarifies §2422(b)). Directed towards those who commit "the most serious crimes against
children," it cannot properly be used as a trap for the unwary, sweeping within its net all
who may - even unwittingly and unintentionally - communicate or otherwise interact
improperly with persons who turn out to be minors.
A prosecution of Mr. Epstein would violate the teachings of Bailey and Panfil. As
we believe we persuaded you at the June 26th meeting, Mr. Epstein never targeted minors.
On the contrary, what he did — at worst — was akin to putting up a sign saying to all, come
in if you are interested in giving a massage for $200. A few among those who accepted
the general invitation may have in fact been under 18 (though they lied about that age and
said they were 18), but that is, at its worst, comparable to "post(ing) messages for all
Internet users, either adults or children, to seek out and read at their discretion," which the
courts have held does not violate §2422(b).
Thus, for this reason as well, Mr. Epstein's case is far outside the parameters of
the §2422(b) cases that have been prosecuted. A key factor common to cases brought
under §2422(b) is not present here: Prosecutions under this statute have focused on a
sexual predator who used the Internet to identify and to communicate with a child or
purported child (or a person with influence over such child or purported child), and did so
with the intent to arrange to engage in sexual activity with the child, with full knowledge
that sexual activity with an individual of that age was illegal. In light of this common and
well-accepted understanding, the cases decided under §2422(b) take as a given that its
proper application lies only where the defendant knows or believes the person with whom
he is interacting is a child.
Virtually all of the prosecutions brought under §2422(b) resulting in published
decisions have involved undercover "sting" operations, involving an essentially standard
fact pattern in which over an extended period of time and in the course of multiple
conversations on line an undercover agent pretends to be a young teenager. In each of the
cases, the prosecution had, from the very words used by the defendant, an all
but
irrefutable case showifg the clear 1 wlcdge and intent of the defendant. A prototypica
l
case is United States Farner, 251 3d 510 (5th Cir. 2001),
where the defendant
participated, over time, in instant messaging, c-mail, and follow-up telephone
calls with a
person who identified herself as 14 years old, engaged in explicit
intemet conversation,
sent her pornographic pictures, persuaded her to meet
with him for sexual activity,
arranged such a meeting, and traveled to the meeting place.
The Fifth Circuit held that
EFTA00226767
LA. Or•ICCS Or
GERALD B. LEPCOURT. PC.
defendant's §2422(b) attempt conviction was valid; it mattered not that the 14 year old
was really an adult FBI agent engaged in a sting opiation, for the defendant "believed
Cindy to be a minor and acted on that belief." 251 3d at 512. Our own survey of the
cases brought in this district under §2422(b) confirms that prosecutions in this District
have also been all but limited to internet sting cases. See Tab "B".
in the context of this standard fact pattern involving the internet's use by
predators, other Circuits, including the Eleventh, have been unanimous in holding that the
non-existence of an actual minor was of no moment; defendant's belief that he was
aling with a minor was sufficient to make out thrrime. See1/nited States v. Root, 296
t3d 1222, 1227-32 ( 1° ' Cir. 2002). United States Sims, 428 3d 945, 959 (10° Cir.
005); United States I Helder, 45213d 751 (8th Cir. 2006); United States !Meek, 366
1 3d 705, 717-20 (9th Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void or vagueness,
overbreadth, and First Amendment challenges to the statute, brought in the context of
these prototypical prosecutions where the interact was the vehicle of communication and
enticement, and the defendant demonstrated in writing his belief that he was dealing with
a child well below the age of onsent. E.g., lifted States' 7),Icarsky, 44613d 458, 473
(3d Cii 2006); United State' Thomas, 410 3d 1235, 1243-44 (10h Cir. 005); United
States Pang supra, 338 3d at 1300-01 (11th Cir. 2003)."
" There are approximately two dozen Eleventh Circuit cases that include a prosecution under
§2424(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States !Morton,
364 I3d 1300 (I l ° Cij. 2004),judgnwru vacatedfor Booker consideration, 125 S. Ct. 338
006); United States I Orrega, 363 I3d 1093 (116 Cir. 2004); United States91 Miranda, 348
r61(II.C
i
I3d 1322 (II6 Cirj003); United States' Tillman, 195 I3d 640 (I I t° Cir.' 9); United States'
Panfil, supra, 338 I 1299 (116 Cii 2003); United States v. Garrett, 190 3d 1220 (116 Cir.
1999); United &awl Burgess, 175 .3d 1999); United States! Rojas, 145 Fed.
Appx. 647 (11° Cir. 2005); United States Root, 296 3d 1222 (11° Cir. 200 ).
United States! Murrell, 368 II3d 1283 (114 Cir. 2004), is in the same mold, except that, in that
sting operation, the defendant communicated, not with the purported 13 year old girl, but with an
undercover agent holding himself out to be the imaginary girl's father. The initial contacts i
between Murrell and the agent occurred in intemet chatrooms named "family love" and "Rent
Vry Yng." Over time, Murrell sought to make arrangements with the girl's father to make his
daughter available for sex in exchange for money. After the initial Internet communications
concerning renting the girl for sexual purposes, further negotiations between the defendant and
the undercover occurred via the phone, per the defendant's suggestion. The Eleventh Circuit,
framing the issue to be whether the defendant must communicate directly with the minor or
supposed minor to violate §2422(b), answered the question in the negative, reasoning that "the
EFTA00226768
LAW Off.CO Of
GERALD B. LEFCOURT. EC.
In light of this common and well-accepted understanding, the cases decided under
§2422(b) take as a given that its proper application lies only where the facts demonstrate
beyond dispute that the defendant knows or believes the person with whom he is
interacting is a minor.
The Ninth Circuit has so held. United States' Meek, 366 lid 705, 718 (9i° Cir.
2004), held that the term "knowingly" refers both to the verbs -"persuades", "induces",
"entices", or "coerces" - as well as to i e object - "a person who has not achieved the
age of 18 years," citing United States X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994), and
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 606 (1994). The Meek Court wrote:
The statute requires mcns rea, that is, a guilty mind. The
guilt arises from the defendant's knowledge of what he
intends to do. In this case, knowledge is subjective — it is
what is in the mind of the defendant."
The very lengthy sentence under §2422(b) speaks against strict liability,
especially since it applies in cases where there is no sexual contact at all with any
person, let alone with a real minor. The Eleventh Circuit's decision in United States
Murrell, supra, reflects this same understanding of the statute. The Murrell court wrote
that, under the "plain language" of §2422(b), "to prove an attempt the government must
efficacy of §2422(b) would be eviscerated if a defendant could circumvent the statute simply by
employing an intermediary to out his intended dive. Id. at 1287. Fact patterns simr
to Murrell's exist in United States Hotnaday, 392 I 6 (11" Cir. 2004); United States
Houston, 177 Fed. Appx. 57 (11th ir. 2006); Unite ales Seamy, 418 F.3d 1193 (II' Cir.
2005); United States Scott, 426 F. 3d 1324 (116 Cir. 2005 , and United States Bolen,
136 Fed.
Appx. 325 (11th Cir. 02).
" Several Courts of Appeal have held that, in a prosecution under §2422(a), the defendant need
not know that the individual that a defendant has persuaded, induced,
enticed, or cotreed to
travel in interstate commerce is under the age of 18. United States v.
Jones, 471 I3d 535 (41h
Cir. 2006), is one of these cases, though its facts are very different,
and much more egregious
than Mr. Epstein's. Assuming Jones was correctly decided and
that the government need not
prove defendant's knowledge under §2422(a), that still does not
answer the question under
§2422(b). The two arc very different statutes, with different histories
and different purposes.
And §2422(a), unlike subsection (b), carries no mandatory minimum
sentence, let alone ten years.
EFTA00226769
LAW Ort.CCS er
GERALD B. LEFCOURT, PC.
first prove that Murrell, using the interne acted with a specific intent to persuade a
F iinor to engage unlawful sex." 368 i 3d at 1286 (emphasis added)." United States
L i Root, supra, 296 3d at 1227, follows this pattern, and confirms that, at the time the
defendant induces or entices the minor, he must intend to have sexual conduct with a
minor or one he believes to be a minor and know that such conduct is proscribed.
I ("Root's statement to task force agents upon his arrest confirmed that he believed he
would meet a 13-year-1 d girl for sex, which he said he knew was wrong but 'exciting").
See also United States Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 2005) (unpublished). This
mens rea requirement plies equally where the completed crime occurs.10
Finally, actus non Tacit reum, nisi mens sit rea - the act alone does not amount to
guilt; it must be accompanied by a guilty mind. This principle of concurrence mandates
that the actus reus and the mens revs concur in time. See Paul H. Robinson, Criminal
Law §4.1 at 217 (1997) (concurrence requirement "means that the required culpability as
to the element must exist at the time of the conduct constituting the offense"); LaFave,
Substantive Criminal Law §3.11(a) (West 1986) (noting that Concurrence is a basic
principle of criminal law and "the better view is that there is concurrence when the
defendant's mental state actuates the physical conduct"). See also United States' Bailey,
supra, 444 U.S. at 402. In this case, the requisite actus reus is absent; likewise the
required mental state. Even if those two fatal defects could be set aside, nevertheless,
there was no concurrence of guilty mind and evil act, providing an additional reason why
a successful prosecution under §2422(b) could not be brought.
6. Conclusion
In Mr. Epstein's case, there was no use of the intemet to induce, etc., and, given
the legislative history and purpose, that is itself dispositive. Nor does the case present
any of the dangers associated with interne[ predators and cyberspace. Not surprisingly
"Otherwise, the police could, for example, conduct a sting operation with a 17 year-old
pretending to be an 18 year-old. Such an absurd operation is surely not intended by the statute.
" Even the completed crime does not require any sexual activity. Arguably, one commits the
attempt offense when the actor, on the interne!, asks a known or believed-to-be minor to have sex,
even if she says no. The completed offense occurs when he takes an additional step, even before
any sexual activity and regardless of whether one ever takes place.
EFTA00226770
•AW of • eCtib
GERALD B. LEPCOURT. P.C.
e
then, the statutory language does not fit: Mr. Epstein did not use any facility of interstate
commerce to do the forbidden act — to persuade, entice, induce, or coerce — nor did he
attempt to do so. Others did use the telephone to make a variety of arrangements for Mr.
Epstein's residence in Palm Beach, including getting the house ready for his arrival,
checking movie schedules, and making telephone calls to schedule doctor's
appointments, personal training, physical therapy and massages. Even if Mr. Epstein
could be held responsible for the use of the telephone on his behalf, nevertheless, calls
made by others regarding massages were not the statutorily proscribed persuasions or
enticements of a known minor to do acts known to be illegal. Within his home, even if
Mr. Epstein may arguably have persuaded or induced individuals to engage in forbidden
conduct with him, he did not violate §2422(b). If he engaged in such persuasion or
inducement, it occurred only face to face and spontaneously.
If such conduct constituted a crime, it would be a classic state offense. The state
is the appropriate forum for addressing these issues. Though in our meeting it was
asserted that cases under §2422(b) are often brought where there was simply use of a
telephone, and casual use at that, it would not from our survey appear to be so on either
count — that is, use of a telephone rather than the intemet, and use of the means of
communication remote from the enticing, etc. This is neither the defendant, nor the
factual context, to break new ground.
H. Mr. Epstein Warrants Declination to Prosecute as Exercise of Discretion.
We believe strongly that no federal case would lie under the facts here. Moreover,
as we discussed, there is a pending state case against Mr. Epstein which can be resolved
in a way that vindicates the state's rights and obligations in this matter.
In considering an appropriate disposition in a case such as this, where the
applicability of the statute, both legally and as a matter of policy, raise serious questions,
and both the reliability and admissibility of much of the evidence is in doubt, it is useful
to consider how best to use the broad discretion you enjoy in choosing
whether to
prosecute. In this regard, we suggest that having a greater understanding of who Jeffrey
Epstein is as a person may help inform how best to proceed.
Jeffrey Epstein was raised in a middle class neighborhood in
Brooklyn, New
York, by hardworking parents. His father was a laborer and
his mother a secretary. They
lived comfortably, but were by no means well off. Mr.
Epstein's parents instilled a strong
work ethic in him, and growing up he held a variety of
jobs to support himself, from
EFTA00226771
l..w *Orion Or
GERALD B. LEFCOURT. P C.
driving a taxi cab to working as a mechanic. Any notion that he was born with a "silver
spoon in his mouth" should be dismissed.
Although Mr. Epstein is self-made and worked long and hard, he could not have
achieved his successes without the personal guidance and support of others. These key
people first identified the promise in Mr. Epstein and brought him to Bear Steams and
Company, Inc. There, starting in 1976 at the age of 23 as a floor trader's junior assistant,
he became in 1980 a limited partner. Among the very many benefits that his experience
there provided was an introduction to the people who ultimately became his clients.
Early in his professional career, Mr. Epstein realized the profound impact that
even one person can have on the life of another. His gratitude for the assistance he
personally received, and his sense of obligation to provide similar assistance and
guidance to others, is in large part, the motive for the primacy of philanthropy in his life
or his particular philanthropic interests. Mr. Epstein has devoted a substantial portion of
his time, efforts and financial resources to helping others, both on an individual basis and
on a more far reaching scope. Mr. Epstein gives generously, of both his time and his
financial resources equally to individuals whom he knows personally and well and to
those with whom he has had little or no personal contact. Just a few examples:
Some time ago, the two year old son of an employee was diagnosed with retinal
blastoma. When told, Mr. Epstein not only gave the employee unlimited time off to
attend to his son and promised whatever financial support was needed, but Mr. Epstein
made the full list of his medical and research contacts available. The employee was put
in contact with a former colleague who was then conducting eye research at Washington
University. Mr. Epstein organized several meetings to determine how the colleague could
be of assistance, including by arranging for further meetings with experts at Washington
University. Though the employee's son lost one eye, he is now an otherwise normal
twelve year old who attends private school along with his five siblings, the expenses of
which are borne by Mr. Epstein.
Several years ago, a new employee with whom Mr. Epstein had little or no prior
contact approached Mr. Epstein to request a change in his medical insurance. It was soon
revealed that the employee and his wife were experiencing fertility problems and they
were seeking treatments that cost nearly $15,000 per month. Mr. Epstein insisted on
paying directly for the treatments, and did so month after month. After each
unsuccessful cycle, Mr. Epstein sat with the employee, exploring available alternatives,
including adoption, and encouraging the employee to continue additional cycles at Mr.
Epstein's. Mr. Epstein referred the employee to medical experts with whom Mr. Epstein
EFTA00226772
taw °Fria, 09
GERALD B. LRECOURT. PC.
was acquainted and assigned personnel to assist the employee with administrative and
secretarial needs that arose in seeking a solution to the problem. Mr. Epstein is now the
godfather of the employee's seven-year old twins.
Recently, both a second employee and a consultant of Mr. Epstein each confided
that they and their respective spouses were experiencing similar fertility problems.
Again, Mr. Epstein offered to pay the uncovered medical costs. The consultant and his
wife are now expecting their first child. The second employee continues with infertility
treatments.
Two years ago, a building workman approached Mr. Epstein with news that the
workman's wife needed a kidney transplant and that the workman's sister-in-law in
Colombia was a willing donor. The non English speaking workman had neither the
financial resources nor the know-how to get the sister-in-law to the United States. Mr.
Epstein arranged for immigration counsel to expedite a visa for the sister-in-law and
purchased the plane tickets for the sister-in-law's visit to the United States. The surgery
was a success and both patients recovered completely. The sister-in-law flew back to
Colombia at Mr. Epstein's expense.
Mr. Epstein is a devoted advocate of personal improvement through education.
As a former board member of Rockefeller University, Mr. Epstein has made available
academic scholarships to worthy students, most of whom he has had no prior connection
to whatsoever. In addition, Mr. Epstein covers the tuition required to send the family
members of his employees to nursery, private elementary, middle and secondary schools
and colleges. He has funded and personally encouraged continuing education programs
for his adult employees and professional consultants.
Among his other acts:
• On a trip to Rwanda to inspect the genocide camps, Mr. Epstein
approached the President of Rwanda and offered to help identify and then
to fund two worthy Rwandan students to earn undergraduate degrees in
the United States. The students, whom Mr. Epstein did not meet until after
their second year of studies, both are expected to graduate with honors
from the City University of New York in 2008. Notes from each of them
are annexed at Tab "C".
• Even to those with less lofty goals, seeking only to advance in their
chosen
paths, Mr. Epstein freely gives of his time to provide guidance and, when
appropriate, financial support. For example, Mr. Epstein has been meeting
EFTA00226773
OF•Cl• or
GERALD 13. LEFOOURT. PC.
monthly with a teenage building workman whose expenses of vocational
school are being paid by Mr. Epstein. Each month, Mr. Epstein reviews
the workman's school progress and discusses career opportunities. One of
the monthly reports is annexed at Tab "D".
• In addition, Mr. Epstein blocks out time each week to meet with young
professionals to discuss their career prospects and counsel them regarding
appropriate next steps.
Although Mr. Epstein is deeply committed to helping others in very personal and
meaningful ways, he has also sought to use his good fortune to help others on a broader
basis. Mr. Epstein has sponsored more than 70 athlete wellness programs, building
projects, scholarship funds and community interest programs in the United States Virgin
Islands alone.
Moreover, Mr. Epstein has given generously to support philanthropic
organizations across the United States and around the world, including America's
Agenda; Robin Hood; Alliance for Lupus Research; Ovarian Cancer Research Fund;
Friends of Israel Defense Forces; Seeds of Peace; the Jewish National Fund; the Hillel
Foundation; the National Council of Jewish Women; and the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund
-- to name only a few.
In a feature article about Mr. Epstein in New York Magazine, former President
Clinton aptly described Mr. Epstein as "a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of
global markets and an in-depth knowledge of twenty-first-century science." President
Clinton reached this conclusion during a month-long trip to Africa with Mr. Epstein,
which Mr. Epstein hosted. The purpose of that trip was to increase AIDS awareness; to
work towards a solution to the AIDS crisis; and to provide funding to reduce the costs of
delivering medications to those inflicted with the disease.
Both before and after that trip to Africa, Mr. Epstein worked hard to achieve
improvements in people's lives on a global basis. He actively sought advancement of his
philanthropic goals through his participation and generous support of both the Trilateral
Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. As you may know, the Trilateral
Commission was formed to foster closer cooperation among core democratic
industrialized areas of the world in the pursuit of goals beneficial to the global
population. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, national membership
organization and a nonpartisan center for scholars dedicated to increase international
understanding of world issues and the foreign policy decisions that affect those issues.
EFTA00226774
LAW 01•FICCS of
GERALD B. LEPCOURT. PC.
Mr. Epstein was part of the original group that conceived the Clinton Global
Initiative, which is described as a project "bringing together a community of global
leaders to devise and implement innovative solutions to some of the world's most
pressing challenges." Focuses of this initiative include poverty, climate change, global
health, and religious and ethnic conflicts.
Mr. Epstein has sought to improve people's lives through active participation in
worthy scientific and academic research projects, as well. He spent hundreds of hours
researching the world's best scientists, and he himself studied as a Harvard Fellow in
order to increase his own knowledge in fields that he believed could provide solutions to
the world's most difficult problems. He is committed to helping the right researchers find
those solutions, especially in the fields of medical science, human behavior and the
environment.
In the past four years alone, Mr. Epstein has made grants to research programs at
major institutions under the supervision of some of the most highly regarded research
professionals and scholars in their fields, including Martin Nowak, a mathematical
biologist who studies, among other things, the dynamics of infectious diseases and cancer
genetics; Martin Seligman, known for his work on Positive Psychology — that is to say
the psychology of personal fulfillment; Roger Schank, a leading researcher in the
application of cognitive learnin theory to the curricula of formal education; the renown
physicist/cosmologist Krauss, and many others. Institutions funded include
Harvard University; Penn tate University; Lenox Hill Hospital (New York); the
Biomedical Research and Education Foundation; the Santa Fe Institute; Massachusetts
Institute of Technology; Case Western Reserve University; and Harvard Medical School's
Institute for Music and Brain Science.
Moreover, Mr. Epstein has sponsored and chaired symposia that have provided a
rare opportunity for the world's leading scholars and research professionals to share ideas
across interdisciplinary lines. These leaders gather to discuss important and complex
topics, including the origin of life, systems for understanding human behavior, and
personal genomics.
In order to expand the pool of qualified research professionals actively engaged in
addressing the world's numerous problems, Mr. Epstein co-founded, and served as a
trustee and actively participated in the selection committee of, the Scholar Rescue Fund.
The Scholar Rescue Fund (SRF) is a program of the Institute of International
Education,
the group that, inter a/ia, administers the Fulbright Scholarship program.
The SRF
provides support and safe haven to scholars at risk from around the world. Over the past
EFTA00226775
Law orricts or
GERALD B. LEFCOURT. PC.
five years, SRF has made 155 grants to scholars fr
are placed at host universities in a safe country. More than 87 institutions around the
world have hosted SRF scholars to date, including eight of the top ten universities in the
United States. Most recently, SRF launched the Iraq Scholar Rescue Project to save
scholars in Iraq, many of whom have been particularly targeted for kidnapping and death
since the conflict there began. Mr. Epstein is a highly valued member of the selection
committee. Just a few articles mentioning these and other projects are annexed at Tab
"E".
Even a casual review of the good works large and small in which he has involved
himself leads one to conclude that he has a powerful instinct to help others. He does this
not simply because he can, but because he has a deeply ingrained desire to do so. In fact,
he believes that, as a result of his good fortune, he is obligated to do so.
Since 2000, Mr. Epstein has funded educational assistance, science and research
and community and civic activities. As you can see, his philanthropy is not limited to
financial support. To the contrary, it has involved the dedication of a remarkable amount
of his time and effort and has yielded admirable results. It is noteworthy that a majority
of the people he has helped over the years have been those with whom he has had little or
no contact, which further confirms that he derives no personal benefit from his good
works, other than the personal satisfaction derived from using his good fortune to help
others.
The sincere devotion to others evidenced by Mr. Epstein's philanthropic activities
is no less apparent in his interpersonal relationships. Mr. Epstein has maintained both
long term significant, intimate as well as professional relationships. He remains close
personal friends with people with whom he went to high school and, to this day,
maintains close business contacts with his former colleagues at Bear Steams. Those who
know Mr. Epstein well describe him admittedly as quirky but certainly not immoral; and
overall as kind, generous and warm-hearted. They have remained staunch supporters
despite the lurid media attention during this two-year investigation.
Mr. Epstein acknowledges that the activities under investigation, as well as the
investigation itself, have had and continue to have an unfortunate impact on many people.
With a profound sense of regret, Mr. Epstein hopes to end any further embarrassment to
all who are and who may become involved in this serious matter. Resolution of the
outstanding charges in the state would put an appropriate end to the matter for everyone.
EFTA00226776
r
LAW 00 ICC,. Y.
GERALD B. LEFCOURT. P.C.
Jeffrey Sloman, Esq.
Matthew Menchel, Esq.
Andrew LS.
A. Marie , Esq.
The Unite!1Mttorney's Office
Southern District of Florida
July 6,2007
Page 23
Again, we and our colleagues thank you for your attention at the June 26 meeting.
I welcome any questions or comments you may have and am available to discuss this and
any other issues at your earliest convenience.
Very truly yours,
Go -a(
Gerald B. Lefcourt
alak,,,.1 44A),,5
Alan Dcrshowitz
cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq.
Roy Black, Esq.
EFTA00226777
STEVEN PINKER
Johnstone Family Professor
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Professor Alan Dershowitz
Harvard Law School
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
June 28, 2007
Dear Alan,
I'm happy to offer the help of my knowledge in linguistics to determine the natural
interpretation of a statute you have inquired about. My comments refer to how a literate English
speaker would interpret the statute, based on research on the syntax and semantics of verbs. I
consider myself an expert on this topic, having written about it in many scholarly articles and in
three books: Learnability and Cognition (MIT Press, 1989), Lexical and Conceptual Semantics
(coedited with Beth Levin; Blackwell, 1992), and The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window
into Human Nature (Viking, 2007).
The statute at issue is as follows:
Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or
foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces,
entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of
18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which
any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to
do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than
ten years or for life.
Your question, as I understand it, pertains to the temporal and causal relationship
between the person's use of the mail (or other interstate/foreign instrument) and his knowingly
persuading (inducing, enticing, etc.) the minor. Simplifying the various disjuncts and subordinate
clauses so that we may concentrate on the semantics, the relevant part of the statute is effectively
this:
Whoever, using the mail etc., knowingly persuades a minor to
engage in a criminal sexual activity, shall be fined and imprisoned.
or
So the question is: does this statute apply (1) to someone who uses the mail (or Internet
does it apply only to
phone) and subsequently persuades a minor, in person, to engage in sex, or
if John
(2) someone who persuades a minor, over the phone (etc.) to engage in sex? That is,
dinner, persuades her to engage in
phones a woman asking her only to have dinner, and then, at
illegal sex, does his behavior fall under the language of the statute?
Linguistically, this boils down to how the appositive gerundive phrase "using the mail"
the semantic role
relates to the causative main verb "persuades." The gerundive phrase is playing
s 02138
William James Hall 970 I 33 Kirkland Street I Cambridge I Massachusett
• AlIC A01. I t 447 AOC.0170 i minbearattuiPs hansarol orb.
EFTA00226778
of instrument: something used as a means to the ends specified by the causative verb. So the
question is how an instrument-phrase is ordinarily interpreted. We can clarify this by simplifying
even further and substituting concrete events for the abstract ones in the statute:
(a) John, using a hammer, broke the glass.
Now consider the following scenarios:
(b) John uses a hammer to bang nails into a piece of wood. Then
he puts the hammer down, reaches for a glass, and deliberately
smashes the glass against the table.
(c) With his right hand, John hammers in a nail. While he is doing
this, he reaches for a glass with his left hand, and deliberately
smashes the glass against the table.
(d) John takes a hammer and deliberately swings it against the
glass, breaking it.
It's clear that no English speaker would ever use the sentence (a) to describe scenario (b).
Similarly, sentence (a) would almost certainly not be used to describe scenario (c): any English
speaker would say "while using a hammer," not just "using a hammer." The only scenario that
can be described by (a) is the one in (d). In other words, the event denoted by the instnunental
gerundive phrase must immediately precede the event denoted by the causative verb, and the
actor has to use the instrument in order to bring about the change indicated by the causative
verb; that is, it has to be the means to an end.
There is an additional condition that has to be met. Consider scenario (e):
(e) Mary is holding a glass. John stands behind Mary, and bangs a
hammer against an iron bar. The noise startles Mary, who drops
the glass, breaking it.
Here, too, it would be pretty weird to use sentence (a) to describe the scenario, even if John
intended for the glass to break as a result of the scenario. As far as English verbs are concerned,
the only means to the end that counts is the one that directly and immediately precedes the end.
In addition, the way in which the means brings about the end has to be more-or-less
stereotyped—the circuitous and unconventional means in this case (startling Mary) renders the
sentence unacceptable.
Finally, to be as charitable as possible to alternative interpretations, consider scenario (I):
(I) A glass is packed in a wooden crate. John smashes the crate
with a hammer in order to open it. He reaches for the glass and
hurls it against the floor, breaking it.
Even with this scenario it would be very odd to say "John, using a hammer, broke the glass."
Once again, the use of the hammer has to the immediate cause of the breaking of the glass,
not
one separated from it by several links in a causal chain.
Getting back to the statute in question, I would conclude that it would naturally apply
only to someone who used the Internet or phone (or other relevant facility) as the direct,
immediate, and intended means to the end of persuasion: that is, the sexual come-on would
have
to be on the phone or in the Internet message. If one doubts this, one only has to consider a
scenario in which John phones Mary to invite her to dinner, having no sexual intentions
whatsoever, and during dinner is struck by her beauty and relaxed by the wine, and decides
on
EFTA00226779
the spur of the moment to try to seduce her. No one could possibly describe that as "John, using
the phone, seduced Mary," since he had no such intention at the time he used the phone.
These properties of the use of verbs—immediateness, means-ends, directness,
stereotypy—have been discussed in the literature on the lexical semantics of causative verbs for
almost forty years. They have also been confirmed in experiments that ask people whether they
could use various sentences to describe particular scenarios. I append below a few of the
references to the relevant scholarly literature.
My professional conclusion, in sum, is that an English speaker, reading the statute, would
naturally understand it as applying only to persuasion (etc.) that is done while "using the mail"
(etc.). To understand it as applying to persuasion (etc.) done subsequent to the use of the mail,
phone, etc., would be an unnatural and grammatically inaccurate reading of the language.
I hope this helps to clarify your question. Please don't hesitate to be in touch if I can
clarify or expand on this analysis.
Sincerely,
Stmia-Rt
Fodor, J. A. (1970). Three reasons for not deriving "kill" from "cause to die". Linguistic
Inquiry, 1, 429-438.
Gergely, G., & Bever, T. G. (1986). Relatedness intutions and mental represenation of
causative verbs. Cognition, 23, 211-277.
Levin, B., & Pinker, S. (Eds.). (1992). Lexical and conceptual semantics. Cambridge, Mass.:
Blackwell.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Shibatani, M. (1976). The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In M.
Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 6: The grammar of causative constructions. New
York: Academic Press.
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49-
100.
Wolff, P. (2003). Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causal
events. Cognition, 88, 1-48.
Wolff, P., & Song, G. (2003). Models of causation and the semantics of causal verbs.
Cognitive Psychology, 47, 276-332.
EFTA00226780
Southern District of Florida Cases Charging 18 U.S.C.S. 2422 (b)
Case # Defendant Counts Other Charges Summary
97-8093 Paul Panunzio 2 2 counts 2422(b) Use of intemet to entice
minor to engage in sex
activity.
00-6034 John Palmer 2 18 U.S.C.S. Use of intemet to entice
2252A(a)(5)(B) minor to engage in sex
activity.
01-0704 Michael Nyberg 1 [None] D met u/c officer (posing
as 13 y.o. girl) on intemet
chat service. D had
sexually explicit
conversation with ofc., set
up meeting on intemet for
purpose of having sex;
arrested at meeting site.
(Affidavit attached).
01-0734 Franco Sabri I [None) D met u/c officer (posing
as 13 y.o. girl) on Internet
chat service. D had
sexually explicit
conversation with ofc., set
up meeting on intemet for
purpose of having sex;
arrested at meeting site.
(Affidavit attached).
01-0756 Eduardo Alvarez I [None] D met u/c officer (posing
as 13 y.o. girl) on intemet
chat service. D had
sexually explicit
conversation with ofc., set
up meeting on intemet for
purpose of having sex;
arrested at meeting site.
(Affidavit attached).
01-0783 Prom D'Szi I [None] D met u/c officer (posing
as 13 y.o. girl) on intemet
chat service. D had
sexually explicit
EFTA00226781
conversation with ofc., set
up meeting on Internet for
purpose of having sex;
arrested at meeting site.
(Affidavit attached).
01-0961 Jose Mayorga 1 [None] D met u/c officer (posing
as 13 y.o. girl) on intemet
chat service. D had
sexually explicit
conversation with ofc., set
up meeting on intemet for
purpose of having sex;
arrested at meeting site.
(Affidavit attached).
01-0998 Gustavo Desouza 1 [None] D met u/c officer (posing
as 13 y.o. girl) on intemet
chat service. D had
sexually explicit
conversation with ofc., set
up meeting on intemet for
purpose of having sex;
arrested at meeting site.
(Affidavit attached).
01-1004 Ferrys Miranda 1 [None] D met u/c officer (posing
as 12 y.o. girl) on intemet
chat service. D had
sexually explicit
conversation with ofc., set
up meeting on intemet for
purpose of having sex;
arrested at meeting site.
(Affidavit attached).
01-1139 James Patterson I ]None] D met u/c officer (posing
as 13 y.o. girl) on intemet
chat service. D had
sexually explicit
conversation with ofc., set
up meeting on intemet for
purpose of having sex;
arrested at meeting site.
(Affidavit attached).
01-1174 Roberto 1 [None) Use of intemet to entice
minor to engage in sex
EFTA00226782
••
•
activity.
01-6024 James Boutin 2 18 U.S.C.S. Use of interne( to entice
2252A(a)(5)(B) minor to engage in sex
activity.
01-6107 Otis Wragg 1 [None] Use of intemet to entice
minor to engage in sex
activity.
01-6157 Kelly Jones 4 18 U.S.C.S. Use of intemet to entice
2252A(aX1); minor to engage in sex
18 U.S.C.S. activity.
2252A(a)(2)(A);
18 U.S.C.S.
2252A(a)(5XB)
01-6185 Byron Matthai 1 None] Use of intemet to entice
minor to engage in sex
activity.
01-6203 Anthony Gentile 2 18 U.S.C.S. Use of intemet to entice
2252A(a)(5XB) minor to engage in sex
activity.
01-8073 Jerrold Levy 5 2 counts 2422(b); D communicated with u/c
18 U.S.C.S. officer (posing as 14 y.o.
2252A(a)(2); boy) on intemet; D had
18 U.S.C.S. sexually explicit
2252A(a)(5)(B); conversation with ofc., set
18 U.S.C.S. up meeting on intemet for
2252(a)(4) purpose of having sex; D
arrested at meeting site.
Police obtained SW for
D's home and seized
computer. Police located
another minor boy that D
had previously
communicated w/ and
engaged in sexual activity
w/; child pornography also
found on computer.
(Affidavit attached).
01-8097 John Estevez I [None] D met u/c officer (posing
as 13/14 y.o. girl) on
intemet chat service. D
had sexually explicit
EFTA00226783
conversations with ofc.; D
gave u/c his cell phone
#; u/c called D (3 taped
phone calls); set up
meeting on intend for
purpose of having sex;
arrested at meeting site.
(Affidavit attached).
01-8161 Carlos Navas I [None] Use of intemet to entice
minor to engage in sex
activity.
02- Anthony Murrell I [None] D met u/c officer (posing
14077 as a mother with a 13 y.o.
daughter) on intemet chat
room; D was looking to be
w/ a mother and daughter.
D gave his phone # to u/c.
D met same u/c (posing as
dad with 13 y.o. daughter)
in another chat room; D
wanted to rent daughter. D
gave his phone # to u/c and
u/c called him to speak
about arrangements. Next
day D & u/c had further
conversation thru the chat
room. 4 days later D
called u/c on phone
making meeting
arrangements & agreed to
pay $300. D arrested at
hotel meeting site.
(Affidavit attached).
1 iNonei Use of intemet to entice
02- Douglas
minor to engage in sex
14080 Bourdon
activity.
1 [None] D met u/c (posing as father
02- James Homadal
with 2 minor
14081 children) in intemet
chatroom. D looking to
have sex with family; u/c
called D several times
and D had sexually explicit
conversations w/
4
EFTA00226784
t✓c. I) also sent nude
photos of himself for
minors to see.
02- Brian Panfil 1 (None] D met u/c officer (posing
20342 as 13 y.o. girl) on intemet
chat service. D had
sexually explicit
conversation with ofc., set
up meeting on intemet for
purpose of having sex; D
asked u/c to call him once
she reached the meeting
point; u/c called; D
arrested at meeting site.
(Affidavit attached).
02- John Orrega I [None] I) met t✓c officer (posing
20408 as 13 y.o. girl) on intemet
chat service. D had
sexually explicit
conversation with oft., set
up meeting on intemet for
purpose of having sex;
arrested at meeting site.
(Affidavit attached).
02- Donald Kent 1 [None] D met u/c officer (posing
20437 as 13 y.o. girl) on intemet
chat service. D had
sexually explicit
conversation with ofc., set
up meeting on intemet for
purpose of having sex;
arrested at meeting site.
(Affidavit attached).
02- Mark Obermaier 2 D met u/c officer (posing
18 U.S.C.S. 1470
20705 as 13 y.o. girl) on
intemet chat service. D
had sexually explicit
conversation with ofc. D
sent obscene photos to
u/c and masturbated on
webcam for u/c. D gave
t✓c his phone #; u/c called
EFTA00226785
D and D had sexually
explicit conversation with
u/c on phone.
02- William Yon 3 3 counts of 2422(6) D contacted 2 15 y.o.
21012 girls/students via the
Internet and had sexually
explicit conversations with
them. Girls went to police.
D set up meeting with u/c
ofc. posing as one of the
girls for purpose of having
sex. D went to meeting
site and then returned
home. D arrested at home.
(Affidavit attached).
02- Samuel Morton 25 2 counts 2422(b); D met several u/c officers
80042 18 U.S.C.S. (posing as minor
2252A(a)(2); girls) on Internet chat
18 U.S.C.S. service. D had sexually
2252(a)(2); explicit conversation with
18 U.S.C.S. ofcs. D sent obscene
2252(a)(4); photos to u/c. D had
18 U.S.C.S. 2253 several phone
conversations w/ different
u/c officers.
02- Todd Kroeber 6 18 U.S.C.S. Use of facility of interstate
80072 2252(aX2); commerce to entice a
18 U.S.C.S. minor to engage in sex
2252A(a)(2); activity (does not specify
18 U.S.C.S. the faciliti).
2252A(a)(5)(B) Knowingly received child
pornography.
Knowingly distributed
child pornography in
interstate commerce by
computer.
02- Elias Guimaraes 1 [None] Use of intemet to entice
80171 minor to engage in sex
activity.
03- Edgar Searcy 1 [None] D met u/c officer (posing
14028 as a dad with a 13 y.o.
6
EFTA00226786
daughter) on intemet chat
room utilized by people
trading their children for
sex. D gave his phone ti to
u/c. U/c called I) at set up
meeting. I) stated that he
intended to have sex w/
u/c's daughter. D arrested
at meeting site.
Joesph Poignant I [None] Use of intemet and
03-
telephone to entice minor
13068
to engage in sex activity.
03- David Brautigam I [None] D met u/c officer (posing
20043 as 13 y.o. girl) on internet
chat service. D (using 2
usernames) had sexually
explicit conversation with
ofc., set up meeting on
intemet for purpose of
having sex; arrested at
meeting site. (Affidavit
attached).
03- Joseph Messier I [None) D met u/c officer (posing
20060 as 13 y.o. girl) on intemet
chat service. D had
sexually explicit
conversation with ofc., set
up meeting on interne( for
purpose of having sex;
arrested at meeting site.
(Affidavit attached).
03- Marco Pena 1 [None] D met u/c officer (posing
20132 as 13 y.o. girl) on intemet
chat service. D had
sexually explicit
conversation with ofc., set
up meeting on intemet for
purpose of having sex;
arrested at meeting site.
(Affidavit attached).
03- Jaime 2 2 counts of 2422(b) D met u/c officer (posing
20133 Montealegre as 14 y.o. girl) on intemet
chat service. D had
7
EFTA00226787
sexually explicit
conversation with ofc., set
up meeting on Internet for
purpose of having sex;
arrested at meeting site.
(Affidavit attached).
03- Kenneth Sciacca 1 [None] Use of intemet to entice
80164 minor to engage in sex
activity.
04- Timothy Darnall I [None] Use of intemet to entice
14009 minor to engage in sex
activity.
04- James Brown 1 [None] Use of intemet to entice
minor to engage in sex
14032
activity.
04- William Kemal I [None] Use of intemet to entice
minor to engage in sex
14063
activity.
Andres Rojas 1 [None] D met u/c officer (posing
04-
as minor girl) on
20040
intemet chat service. D
had sexually explicit
conversation with u/c ofc.
3 2 counts of 18 Use of intemet to entice
04- Carlos Barroso
U.S.C.S. 1470 minor to engage in sex
20055 activity.
Transfer of obscene
material via the Internet.
2 18 U.S.C.S. 1594(a) D responded to an
04- Derek
advertisement in a
20408 newspaper
for Costa Rica Taboo
Vacations, a fake travel
agency run by federal
investigators. D
negotiated and paid for a
trip to Costa Rica in
which he planned to have
sex with 16-year old
minors. lie cancelled the
8
EFTA00226788
trip, but arranged for
Taboo Vacations to
provide him with underage
sex with the Costa Rican
girls in the U.S. D set
up meeting at hotel. D
arrested at hotel.
3 18 U.S.C.S. 2423(e); Knowingly attempted to
04- James Marquez
18 U.S.C.S. 1594(a) induce minor to engage in
20409 prostitution. [no other
facts]
3 18 U.S.C.S. 2423(e); D called "travel agency" to
04- Wallace Strevell
18 U.S.C.S. 1594(a) arrange for trip to
20520 Costa Rica for sex w/
minors. D had several
phone conversations w/
travel agency. D bought
tickets and made
reservations at hotel. D
arrested at airport.
3 18 U.S.C.S. 2423(e); Knowingly attempted to
04- Vincent Springer
18 U.S.C.S. 1594(a) induce minor to engage in
20551 prostitution. [no other
facts]
Clarke 18 U.S.C.S. 2423(e); D attempted to arrange to
04-
18 U.S.C.S. 1594(a) have sex w/ minor
20656
girls in Costa Rica thru
fake "travel agency."
04- R) an Karmen 9 18 U.S.C.S. Use of intemet to entice
20837 2252A(a)(2XA); minor under 12 y.o. to
18 U.S.C.S. engage in sex activity.
2252A(a)(5)(B); Possessed and distributed
21 U.S.C.S. 841(a)(1); child pornography.
18 U.S.C.S. Possession with intent to
924(c)(1XA); sell drugs.
18 U.S.C.S. 2253; Knowingly carry firearm
21 U.S.C.S. 853 during drug trafficking
18 U.S.C.S. 924(d)(1) crime.
04- Raymond 13 2 counts 2422(b); Use of intemet to entice
60046 Bohning 18 U.S.C.S. minor to engage in sex
2251(c)(1), (c)(2), and activity.
(e); Traveled to England for
9
EFTA00226789
18 U.S.C.S. 2423(6) purpose of having sex with
and (I); minor.
18 U.S.C.S. Sent, distributed, and
2252A(a)(1); received child
18 U.S.C.S. pornography.
2252A(aX2XA);
18 U.S.C.S.
2252A(a)(2XB);
18 U.S.C.S.
2252A(a)(6)0;
I8 U.S.C.S.
2252A(a)(5XB)
Gerald Smith 1 [None] Use of intemet to entice
05-
minor to engage in sex
14011
activity.
"I imothy 4 2 counts of 2422(6) Use of intemet to entice
05-
18 U.S.C.S. minor to engage in sex
14024 Campbell
2252(aX2); activity.
18 U.S.C.S. Received and possessed
2252(AX4)(B) child pornography that had
been transported in
interstate commerce.
3 18 U.S.C.S. 2423(b) Use of intemet to entice
05- Adam Statland
minor to engage in sex
14039 activity.
Traveled from California
to Florida w/ intent to
engage in sexual activity
with a minor.
I [None] Use of intemet to entice
05- Robert Carlo
minor to engage in sex
14046 activity.
2 18 U.S.C.S. Use of intemet to entice
05- Mark Rader
2252(aX1) minor to engage in sex
14047
activity.
Knowingly transported
child pornography in
interstate commerce.
2 18 U.S.C.S. Use of intemet to entice
05- Robert Latham minor to engage in sex
14060 2252(a)(1)
activity.
Knowingly transported
10
EFTA00226790
child pomographl by a
computer.
1 [None] Use of Internet to entice
05- Ralph Poole, Jr.
minor to engage in sex
14099 activity.
3 18 U.S.C.S. Operation of child
05- Mark Madison
1591(aX1); prostitution ring in Miami.
20444 Justin Evans 3
18 U.S.C.S. 14 y.o. girl worked for
Chad Yearby 3
1591(a)(2); Evans as prostitute.
18 U.S.C.S. 2423(e) Evans arranged dates for
her at hotels, and she
gave money from dates to
Evans. Evans called
14 y.o. girl to inform her
of dates. Evans also
gave girl's phone # to
customers. Evans
supplied girl with
condoms.
1 [None] Use of intemet to entice
05- Edward Byrd
minor to engage in sex
60049 activity.
Callahan 2 18 U.S.C.S. 2423(b) Use of intemet to entice
05-
minor to engage in sex
60073 activity.
Thomas I [None] D met u/c officer (posing
05- as 15 y.o. girl) on
80023 Bohannon
intemet chat service. D
had sexually explicit
conversation with ofc., set
up meeting on
intemet for purpose of
having sex; arrested at
meeting site.
[None] D met u/c officer (posing
05- 1,aronn Houston 1
as a mother with a 14
80029 y.o. daughter) on intemet
chat room. D set up
meeting w/ mother &
11
EFTA00226791
minor. D arrested at
meeting site.
05- Lucas Phelps 5 18 U.S.C.S. 1470 Use of intemet to entice
80200 minor to engage in sex
activity.
Attempt to knowingly
transfer child pornography
in interstate commerce to a
minor.
06- Octavio 2 18 U.S.C.S. Use of intemet to entice
14003 Villalona 2252(a)(1) minor to engage in sex
activity.
Knowingly transported
child pornography by a
computer.
06- 1)aniel Williams 1 I None] Use of internet to entice
14006 minor to engage in sex
activity.
06- Ricky Barnett 1 (None] Use of intemet to entice
14007 minor to engage in sex
activity.
06- John Everhart. 11 1 [None) Use of internet to entice
14011 minor to engage in sex
activity.
06- Eric Rollins 3 2 counts 2422(b) Use of intemet to entice
14016 18 U.S.C.S. 2422(a) minor to engage in sex
activity.
Knowingly enticed a
minor to travel in interstate
commerce to engage in
sexual activity.
06- Richard Grande, 1 I None] Use of intemet to entice
14053 Jr. minor to engage in sex
activity.
06- Eric Matthews 4 18 U.S.C.S. 1470; Use of intemet to entice
14069 18 U.S.C.S. minor to engage in sex
2252(aX2) activity.
Knowingly transferred
obscene material to a
minor in interstate
commerce.
12
EFTA00226792
Knowingly distributed
child pornography in
interstate commerce.
06- Anthony Perez 3 18 U.S.C.S. 1470; Use of Internet to entice
14074 18 U.S.C.S. 2251 (a) minor to engage in sex
and (e) activity.
Knowingly transferred
obscene material to a
minor under 16 y.o. in
interstate commerce.
Enticed minor to engage in
sexual conduct for purpose
of transporting visual
depiction in interstate
commerce.
06- Michael I 'None] Knowingly attempted to
20249 induce minor to engage in
prostitution. [no other
facts]
06- Dino Pancaro ., 18 U.S.C.S. 2423(e); Knowingly attempted to
20341 18 U.S.C.S. 1594(a) induce minor to engage in
prostitution.
Attempted to travel to
engage in commercial sex
act with a minor.
06- Demond Osley 8 18 U.S.C.S. Minor arrested for
20734 Stacey Greer 1591(a)(1); prostitution on Miami
18 U.S.C.S. 2421; Beach.
18 U.S.C.S. 2422(a); When questioned by
18 U.S.C.S. officers, minor said Osley
1001(aX2); brought her from Michigan
18 U.S.C.S. to Florida for
1028(a)(4) purpose of prostitution; ‘
Osley became unhappy
with minor b/c she was not
meeting daily quota;
Osley sold minor to Greer.
Greer takes minor to
hotel, forces her to have
sex, video tapes minor
and takes photos of her to
distribute on intemet.
Omer also forces minor
into prostitution tivu
13
EFTA00226793
threats of violence. Minor
identified Osley and
Greer. Both arrested.
06- Keith Lanzon I (None] Use of intemet to entice
20783 minor to engage in sex
activity.
06- Lynn Mann 3 18 U.S.C.S. 1470; Use of intemet to entice
80031 18 U.S.C.S. minor to engage in sex
2252A(a)(5)(B); activity.
18 U.S.C.S. Distribute child
2252A(b)(2) pornography to a minor.
Possession of child
pornography.
Rafael Ramirez, 1 [None] Use of intemet to entice
06-
Jr. minor to engage in sex
80034
activity.
Adam McDaniel 2 18 U.S.C.S. 2423(b) D was 19 in Texas, met 14
06-
y.o. girl on intemet
80058
who lived in Florida. D &
girl communicated
by email & phone. D flew
to Florida, met w/
girl and had sex w/ her in a
hotel.
2 18 U.S.C.S. 2423(b) Use of intemet and cellular
06- David Girouard
telephone to entice minor
80135
to engage in sex activity.
4 18 U.S.C.S. 1470; Use of intemet to entice
07- Benjamin ■
18 U.S.C.S. minor to engage in sex
14002 activity.
2252A(a)(2XA);
18 U.S.C.S. Knowingly transferred
2252(b)(1); obscene material to a
18 U.S.C.S. minor under 16 y.o. in
2252(aX4)(B) interstate commerce.
Knowingly distributed
child pornography in
interstate commerce.
Possession of child
pornography.
2 18 U.S.C.S. 2251 (a) Use of intemet to entice
07- Ricky
and (e) minor to engage in sex
14004
14
EFTA00226794
activity.
Attempted production of
child pornography thru
interstate commerce.
07- Carl Beater 2 18 U.S.C.S. Use of intemet to entice
14005 2252A(a)(2XA); minor to engage in sex
18 U.S.C.S. activity.
2252A(b)(l) Knowingly distributed
child pornography in
interstate commerce.
07- Francesco Simo I [None] Use of intemet to entice
14015 minor to engage in sex
activity.
07- Joseph Crutchley I [None] Use of Internet to entice
14016 minor to engage in sex
activity.
07- Wesley Evans 3 18 U.S.C.S. 2423(a); Use of intemet to entice
14024 Evans 1 18 U.S.C.S. 2423(e) minor to engage in sex
activity.
Conspiracy to transport a
minor to engage in sexual
activity.
Knowingly transport (or
attempt) a minor to engage
in sexual activity.
07- Sammy 4 18 U.S.C.S. 1591(a); Knowingly attempted to
20214 Carpenter, 18 U.S.C.S. 2422(a) induce minor to engage in
Darryl Jennings, prostitution.
Luroy Jennings
07- Nelson Cintron 3 18 U.S.C.S. Use of intemet to entice
60049 2252A(a)(2)(A); minor to engage in sex
18 U.S.C.S. activity.
2252A(a)(5)(B) Possessed and distributed
child pornography.
07- Oliver Buelow 2 18 U.S.C.S. 2423(b) [No factual information]
60084
07- Marion 3 18 U.S.C.S. 2423(a); Use of intemet and cellular
80099 Yarbrough 18 U.S.C.S. 2422(a) telephone to entice
minor to engage in sex
15
EFTA00226795
activity.
Transport minor to engage
in sex activity.
Entice minor to travel in
interstate commerce to
engage in sex activity.
16
EFTA00226796
North Academic Center, Room 6/141
160 Convent Avenue
the New York, New York 10031
City College TEL
of Newt!: FAX:
www.ccny.cuny.udu
INTERNATIONAL. STUDIES PROGRAM
August 21,2006.
Jeffrey Epstein
do Darren Indyke Esq.
457 Madison Avenue — 14th Floor
New York,
N.Y. 10022.
Dear Mr. Epstein,
Thank you for your continued and generous support of the undergraduate academic
careers of Georges Ndabashimiye and Nicole Mutesi.
Both students have done very well both academically and in co-curricular life and expect
to graduate in June, 2008. Georges will return to Rwanda to teach and Nicole plans to
join the energy industry which is focused on developing Rwanda's newly found resources
in natural gas.
Your support of these two students will thus contribute to the human resource wealth of
Rwanda.
Marina W. Fernando Ph.D.
Director, International Studies Program
and Deputy Dean of Social Science.
THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
EFTA00226797
01107. 10C
be 01 I erttirt.,
kis it , CLA rati res
,yon rrv. ktnai c.ovi flzviyxs
clusb:/ baskkuso- beat, . 3
Erecabi oltrea aEe detruivvrot
Cct, ,a 0.5• 9,6,4r oust_
Rsa, gvateck
ws5 I
9tit- APAR 0,1,1 claet. rn9 acude —
rnzt sulks
561c/stay
coLe M U TES
EFTA00226798
o9./zcr.°
Peo4 Setsk-pi j
2 4Lrblic
-rut r rior
alter+kruk.
r
llne teen,
'Ce gLot burn
41 Ae ltut
rk,
9laCUal
a Cho
r 4csok
19Leida \taut
gleol- LoisLt.') )
cescate, Ncioltaolmint
EFTA00226799
ma) Va cish,trany) 1 rz\Pei\A 3 0-1r
NalcssreS: k•ko cotift•No.t.A c(y_SN:s4 t•N
ker6 VAT6SI 2 52Sa c.c.) fl \ • \KRONE
S\ ukb‘js 11/4).A \Not‘ maNki, • -`, 1s30-14
VUOAch I oz> ;541.0 •a-s‘Aa% Cre"'S"3
(' l,Mv\ SA ‘A Lk. 4-VA\ sva OA* •4..ht.
O CM ‘ 1/4.00 I 1 4e 4O1 33: it z `o a cS.01
Ta cum . 5 sti 4 wen61.4-s \s‘val
-Nst•tm.yr .yact\ ?h i t 00*
ks ,r4sik „AN, \zs \-3, 3...n. -6.4k.
"^"."A\ 05 ""A .3S\ tse%3 2cs-"")$`\
-4r.N.sts of c .,c..O,vc ••-•„,„..s, t:\
- • ...4k ,c\ acalloa e‘ r..m.s\e _ant; -
A.6q.co not, pat. Ci.r a cc c44/1\ Tz.
• k r .\ i‘ 430c ist•cstoor.ms..ms c-stsi 4 \3
-nckcia 1-Y 'WM rei -SI • 10
vrac•-\ 'awes\ \rats I 5.14 osic ers tot\ \
-v"\ c‘ i -a\N "a4c-S It'N C'`,C) jes•
sa‘3, -rest ',Anus -ntint" zm\ e* -raTo
C.:1‘..kos s ‘ wick ks5, si'a cis .\ t
• A..0.e. stroVn-o-\ i ctoc%
.4v* 9.0A aSusauca "a Wt. cur \ .\-414k
to.l o s .a\ nOk \\ of Vat-WOO\ -1-
I SW • .40'yc-araStya•\ t,\\)%0 \??0,4Cy o)„44
anssiTn- o.netva.\s " co• s.4.3‘.\
r .41,40(.4 von 3 %M.\ \ -‘ 0‘.\\ ok Aair
• c,.3.5 4,,,cois.)0.39is sec, I %%xi
• i iv\votaavA wsv. ov\ Asae\ - .;A\ (NO\
s4.,1 ANArN. c4 0 1/4 OA; \-
$3\i
r451 0-1. ethy c4-1r, CA = I -IsSakx•Va4aS ..
••.1‘,aktS iN Z-4 -IstZ
• ••
EFTA00226800
SS
kres..n-4 j. crt...k7
.1 Vb.% \tr . I ckty.Se Qre..k C.V:\%5 Vsek\k
`fit Mt WAND *rt. cLea.,\C-Skat ‘cou \ 3 r.t SS
\fro y a „,b,,
N„,>. My \5 }so
\M.) y \irt4S.e.5 t.\ - . 0, S‘,04ite.
orN \AoA, (`.%)r, kAce Wc.o,A-itn )
Pr% cot.‘Aken;.S P°e(4°PS Otth r tcc1/4‘ )-
43.-")g t 1/4 c to -,\ TN.; . AeXt. Sv-)
ittne \revs ri:\e, b.\ .w0A
scw.t. o‘. \„1„ 4 O\ ...A
\It vw-t. Th‘f \Crto-,-)
te. So\-V\ no) c/4
1 \AI
S‘'
\ Sr
‘ )AS ','tits-es
\NIVaNeNM- .eiNove t\- k`4.- te°4W \S1Ncl1/4r4
t sr.
.cso.‘Th . . she
14-ett) oviA IC
S\-cAv ttlj \AD.) \$
c1
/4114.4. 16u 56 nroa awj W\-on \-
0.4p
C-at<96 \ -0 \ work mk,z) katn,s1Ne.s.3"
‘acet.,‘ ke
o.\5° troul 4-o `Ne If
‘ vir \\`' c`f`Y \ `'Vsrve w°At cci" \
(r.c.t. ire. In)* `tic ynk ‘aNtetert
*NI SV4 +' \VT Wit \VASA' .1_ _._c9.,.\,.._ •
yvQ ) \Nla beer te44-r-ty sQs4-ecn
, We- •Vto 3r1/4"0"V" 100 r Ivor let tete 49
WchiS45 ‘ith) \ 4•42.1
\Min \,A\.\ tz14z.
RS 1 IST\5• wo,el •r Ara No 4
‘44. , "r— oJ e {or 3cce. ‘C‘tc,st. sicesA-
N:\;4... CAI 11\5‘0:K\ Oc- 9t\rt tbrhnta
-CtSVtict "Art. \ja\AC \? CS'eAlfiv) \CS,‘.". -
itt ereN 'N k Nero r --1. \a \et \\ can .:te
c) k ck. y ‘ v..A ,A O rb c v.).e. \ yen cvoa y
r e *ft erfeA *lite , c SC4
f hove 4...3d\I
EFTA00226801
447 of 1456 DOCUMENTS
Copyright 2004 Gale Group, Inc.
ASAP
Copyright 2004 American Association for Artificial Intelligence
Al Magazine
June 22, 2004
SECTION: No. 2, Vol. 25; Pg. 113; ISSN: 0738-4602
IAC-ACC-NO: 119024857
LENGTH: 7274 words
HEADLINE: The St. Thomas common sense symposium: designing architectures for human-level
intelligence.
BYLINE: Minsky, Marvin; Singh, Push; Sloman, Aaron
BODY:
To build a machine that has "common sense" was once a principal goal in the field of artificial
intelligence. But most researchers in recent years have retreated from that ambitious aim. Instead. each
developed some special technique that could deal with some class of problem well, but does poorly at
almost everything else. We are convinced, however, that no one such method will ever turn out to be
"best," and that instead, the powerful Al systems of the future will use a diverse array of resources that,
together, will deal with a great range of problems. To build a machine that's resourceful enough to have
humanlike common sense, we must develop ways to combine the advantages of multiple methods to
represent knowledge, multiple ways to make inferences, and multiple ways to learn. We held a two-day
symposium in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, to discuss such a project—to develop new architectural
schemes that can bridge between different strategies and representations. This article reports on the events
and ideas developed at this meeting and subsequent thoughts by the authors on how to make progress.
The Need for Synthesis in Modern Al
To build a machine that has "common sense was once a principal goal in the field of artificial
intelligence. But most researchers in recent years have retreated from that ambitious aim. Instead, each
developed some special technique that could deal with some class of problem well, but does poorly at
almost everything else. An outsider might regard our field as a chaotic array of attempts to exploit the
advantages of (for example) neural networks, formal logic, genetic programming, or statistical inference--
with the proponents of each method maintaining that their chosen technique will someday replace most of
the other competitors.
We do not mean to dismiss any particular technique. However, we are convinced that no one such
method will ever turn out to be "best," and that instead, the powerful AI systems of the future will use a
diverse array of resources that, together, will deal with a great range of problems. In other words, we
should not seek a single "unified theory!" To build a machine that is resourceful enough to have humanlike
common sense, we must develop ways to combine the advantages of multiple methods to represent
knowledge, multiple ways to make inferences, and multiple ways to learn.
We held a two-day symposium in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, to discuss such a project--to
develop new architectural schemes that can bridge between different strategies and representations. This
article reports on the events and ideas developed at this meeting and subsequent thoughts by the authors on
how to make progress. (1)
Organizing the Diversity of AI Methods
EFTA00226802
Marvin Minsky kicked off the meeting by discussing how we might begin to organize the many
techniques that have been developed in Al so far. While Al researchers have invented many
representations, methods, and architectures for solving many types of problems, they still have little
understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each these techniques. We need a theory that helps to
map the types of problems we face onto the types of solutions that arc available to us. When should one use
a neural network? When should one use statistical teaming? When should one use logical theorem proving?
To help answer these kinds of questions, Minsky suggested that we could organize different AL
methods into a "causal diversity matrix" (figure I). Here, each problem-solving method, such as analogical
reasoning, logical theorem proving, and statistical inference, is assessed in terms of its competence at
dealing with problem domains with different causal structures.
[FIGURE I OMITTED]
Statistical inference is often useful for situations that are affected by many different matched causal
components, but where each contributes only slightly to the final phenomenon. A good example of such a
problem-type is visual texture classification, such as determining whether a region in an image is a patch of
skin or a fragment of a cloud. This can be done by summing the contributions of many small pieces of
evidence such as the individual pixels of the texture. No one pixel is terribly important, but en masse they
determine the classification. Formal logic, on the other hand, works well on problems where there are
relatively few causal components, but which are arranged in intricate structures sensitive to the slightest
disturbance or inconsistency. An example of such a problem-type is verifying the correctness of a computer
program, whose behavior can be changed completely by modifying a single bit of its code. Case-based and
analogical reasoning lie between these extremes, matched to problems where there are a moderate number
of causal components each with a modest amount of influence. Many common sense domains, such as
human social reasoning, may fall into this category. Such problems may involve knowledge too difficult to
formalize as a small set of logical axioms, or too difficult to acquire enough data about to train an adequate
statistical model.
It is true that many of these techniques have worked well outside of the regimes suggested by this
causal diversity matrix. For example, statistical methods have found application in realms where previously
rule-based methods were the norm, such as in the syntactic parsing of natural language text. However, we
need a richer heuristic theory of when to apply different Al techniques, and this causal diversity matrix
could be an initial step toward that. We need to further develop and extend such theories to include the
entire range of Al methods that have been developed. so that we can more systematically exploit the
advantages of particular techniques.
How could such a "meta-theory of Al techniques" be used by an AI architecture? Before we turned to
this question, we discussed a concrete problem domain in which we could think more clearly about the goal
of building a machine with common sense.
Returning to the Blocks World
Later that first morning, Push Singh presented a possible target domain for a commonsense
architecture project. Consider the situation of two children playing together with blocks (figure 2).
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED)
Even in this simple situation, the children may have concerns that span many "mental realms":
Physical: What if I pulled out that bottom block?
Bodily: Can I reach that green block from here?
Social: Should I help him with his tower or knock it down?
Psychological: I forgot where I left the blue block.
Visual: Is the blue block hidden behind that stack?
Spatial: Can I arrange those blocks into the shape of a table?
Tactile: What would it feel like to grab five blocks at once?
EFTA00226803
Self-Reflective: I'm getting bored with this--at else is there to do?
Singh argued that no present-day Al system demonstrates such a broad range of commonsense skills.
Any architecture we design should aim to achieve some competence within each of these and other
important mental realms. He proposed that to do this we work within the simplest possible domain
requiring reasoning in each of these realms. He suggested that we develop our architectures within a
physically realistic model world resembling the classic Blocks World, but where the world was populated
by several simulated beings, and thus emphasizing social problems in addition to physical ones. These
beings would manipulate simple objects like blocks, balls, and cylinders, and would participate in the kinds
of scenarios depicted in figure 3, which include jointly building structures of various kinds, competing to
solve puzzles, teaching each other skills through examples and through conversation, and verbally
reflecting on their own successes and failures.
r
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED
The apparent s' plicity of this world is deceptive, for many of the kinds of problems that show up in
this world have not t been tackled in Al, for they require combining elements of the following:
Spatial reasoning about the spatial arrangements of objects in one's environment and how the parts of
objects arc oriented and situated in relation to one another. (Which of those blocks is closest to me?)
Physical reasoning about the dynamic behavior of physical objects with masses and
colhding/supporting surfaces. (What would happen if I removed that middle block from the tower?)
Bodily reasoning about the capabilities of one's physical body. (Can I reach that block without having
to get up?)
Visual reasoning about the world that underlies what can be seen. (Is that a cylinder-shaped block or
part of a person's leg?)
Psychological reasoning about the goals and beliefs oneself and of others. (What is the other person
trying to do?)
Social reasoning about the relationships, shared goals and histories that exist between people. (How
can I accomplish my goal without the other person interfering?)
Reflective reasoning about one's own recent deliberations. (What was I trying to do a moment ago?)
Conversational reasoning about how to express one's ideas to others. (How can I explain my problem
to the other person?)
Educational reasoning about how to best learn about some subject, or to teach it to someone else.
(How can I generalize useful rules about the world from experiences?)
Many of the meeting participants were enthusiastic about this proposal and agreed that there would be
challenging visual, spatial, and robotics problems within this domain. Ken Forbus pointed out that the
video game communities would soon produce programmable virtual worlds that would easily meet our
needs. Several participants mentioned the success of the RoboCup competitions (Kitano et al. 1997), but
some concluded that the RoboCup domain, while appropriate for those interested in the problem of
coordinating multiagent teams in a competitive scenario, was very different in character from the situation
of two or three people more slowly working together on a physical task, communicating in natural
language, and in general operating on a more thoughtful and reflective level.
Still, the participants had a heated debate about the adequacy of the proposed problem domain. The
most common criticism was that this world does not contain enough of a variety of objects or richness of
behavior. Doug Lenat suggested a solution to this, which was to embed the people within not a Blocks
World, but instead somewhere like a typical house or office, as in the popular computer game The Sims.
Doug Riecken argued that we could develop enough of the architecture within the more limited virtual
world, and later add extensions to deal with a wider range of objects and phenomena.
A different response to this criticism was that in order to focus on architectural issues, it would help to
simplify the problem domain, so that we could focus less on acquiring a large mass of world knowledge,
and more on developing better ways for systems to use the knowledge they have. However, other
EFTA00226804
participants argued that restricting the world would not entirely bypass the need for large databases of
conunonsense knowledge, for even this simple world would likely require hundreds of thousands or even
millions of elementary pieces of commonsense knowledge about space, time, physics, bodies, social
interactions, object appearances, and so forth.
Other participants disagreed with the virtual world domain. They felt that we should instead take the
more practical approach of developing the architecture by starting with a useful application like a search
engine or conversational agent, and extending its common sense abilities over time. But Ben Kuipers
worried that choosing too specific an application would lead to what happened to most previous projects--
someone discovers some set of ad hoc tricks that leads to adequate performance, without making any more
general progress toward more versatile, resourceful, or "more intelligent" systems.
In the end, after long debates we achieved a substantial consensus that to solve harder problems
requiring common sense, we first needed to solve the more restricted class of problems that show up in
simpler domains like the proposed virtual world. Once we get the core of the architecture functioning in
this rich but limited domain, we can attempt to extend it--or it extend itself--to deal with a broader range of
problems using a much broader array of commonsense knowledge.
Large-Scale Architectures for Human-level Intelligence
In the afternoon, we discussed large-scale architectures for machines with human-level intelligence
and common sense. Marvin Minsky and Aaron Sloman each presented their current architectural
proposals
as a starting point for the meeting participants to criticize, debug, and elaborate. These two architectures
share so many features that we will refer to them together as the Minsky-Sloman model.
These architectures are distinguished by their emphasis on reflective thinking. Most cognitive models
have focused only on ways to react or deliberate. However, to make machines more versatile, they
will
need better ways to recognize and repair the obstacles, bugs and deficiencies that result from their
own
activities. In particular, whenever one strategy fails, they'll need to have a collection of
ways to switch to
alternative ways to think. To provide for this, Minsky's architectural design includes several
reflective
levels beyond the reactive and deliberative levels. Here is one view of his model for the architecture
of a
person's mind, as described in his book, The Emotion Machine, and shown here in figure 4.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED)
Some participants questioned the need for so many reflective layers; would not a single
one be
enough? Minsky responded by arguing that today, when our theories still explain too little, we
should
elaborate rather than simplify, and we should be building theories with more parts, not
fewer. This general
philosophy pervades his architectural design, with its many layers, representations, critics, reasoning
methods, and other diverse types of components. Only once we have built an architecture rich enough
to
explain most of what people can do will it make sense to try to simplify things. But today, we are still far
from an architectural design that explains even a tiny fraction of human cognition.
Aaron Sloman's Cognition and Affect project has explored a space of architectures proposed as
models for human minds; a sketch of Sloman's H-CogAff model is shown in figure 5.
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED)
This architecture appears to provide a framework for defining with greater precision than previously a
host of mental concepts, including affective concepts, such as "emotion," "attitude,'' "mood," "pleasure,"
and so on. For instance, H-CogAff allows us to define at least three distinct varieties of emotions; primary,
secondary and tertiary emotions, involving different layers of the architecture which evolved at different
times--and the same architecture can also distinguish different forms of learning, perception, and control of
behavior. (A different architecture might be better for exploring analogous slates of insects, reptiles, or
other mammals.) Human infants probably have a much-reduced version of the architecture that includes
self-bootstrapping mechanisms that lead to the adult form.
The central idea behind the Minsky-Sloman architectures is that the source of human resourcefulness
and robustness is the diversity of our cognitive processes: we have many ways to solve every kind of
problem--both in the world and in the mind--so that when we get stuck using one method of solution, we
EFTA00226805
can rapidly switch to another. There is no single underlying knowledge representation scheme or
inferencing mechanism.
How do such architectures support such diversity? In the case of Minsky's Emotion Machine
architecture, the top level is organized as follows. When the system encounters a problem, it first uses some
knowledge about "problem-types" to select some "way-to-think" that might work. Minsky describes "ways-
to-think" as configurations of agents within the mind that dispose it towards using certain styles of
representation, collections of commonsense knowledge, strategies for reasoning, types of goals and
preferences, memories of past experiences, manners of reflections, and all the other aspects that go into a
particular "cognitive style." One source of knowledge relating problem-types to ways-to-think is the causal
diversity matrix discussed at the start of the meeting--for example, if the system were presented with a
social problem, it might use the causal diversity matrix to then select a case-based style of reasoning, and a
particular database of social reasoning episodes to use with it.
However, any particular such approach is likely to fail in various ways. Then if certain "critic" agents
notice specific ways in which that approach has failed, they either suggest strategies to adapt that approach,
or suggest alternative ways-to-think, as suggested shown in figure 6. This is not done by employing any
simple strategy for reflection and repair, but rather by using large arrays of higher level knowledge about
where each way-to-think has advantages and disadvantages, and how to adapt them to new contexts.
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
In Minsky's design, several ways-to-think are usually active in parallel. This enables the system to
quickly and fluently switch between different ways-to-think because, instead of starting over at each
transition, each newly activated way-to-think will find an already-prepared representation. The system will
rarely "get stuck" because those alternative ways-to-think will be read' to take over when the present one
nms into trouble, as shown in figure 7.
(FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
Here each way-to-think involves reasoning in a particular subset of mental realms. Impasses
encountered while reasoning in one set of mental realms can be overcome within others. Further
information about these architectures can be found in Singh and Minsky (2003), Sloman (2001), and
McCarthy et al. (2002). Minsky's model will be described in detail in his new book The Emotion Machine
(Minsky, forthcoming).
Generally, the participants were sympathetic to these proposals, and all agreed with the idea that to
achieve human-level intelligence we needed to develop more effective ways to combine multiple AI
techniques. Ken Forbus suggested that we needed a kind of "component marketplace," and that we should
find ways to instrument these components so that the reflective layers of the architecture had useful
information available to them. He contrasted the Soar project (Laird, Newell, and Rosenbloom 1987) as an
effort to eliminate and unify components rather than to accumulate and diversify them, as in the Minsky-
Sloman proposals. Ashwin Ram and Larry Bimbaum both pointed out that despite the agreement over the
architectural proposals it was still not clear what the particular components of the architecture would be.
They pointed out that we needed to think more about what the units of reasoning would be. In other words,
we needed to come up with a good list of way-to-think. Some examples might include the following:
Solving problems by making analogies to past experiences
Predicting what will happen next by rule-based mental simulations
Constructing new "ways to think" by building new collections of agents
Explaining unexpected events by diagnosing causal graphs
Learning from problem-solving episodes by debugging semantic networks
Inferring the state of other minds by re-using self-models
Classifying types of situations using statistical inference
Getting unstuck by reformulating the problem situation
This list could be extended to include all available AI techniques.
EFTA00226806
Educating the Architecture
On the morning of the second day of the meeting, we addressed the problem of how to supply the
architecture with a broad range of commonsense knowledge, so that it would not have to "start from
scratch." We all agreed that learning was of value, but we didn't all agree on where to start. Many
researchers would like to start with nothing: however, Aaron Sloman pointed out that an architecture that
comes with no knowledge is like a programming language that comes with no programs or libraries.
One view that was expressed was that approaches that start out with too little initial knowledge would
likely not achieve enough versatility in any practical length of time. Minsky criticized the increasing
popularity of the concept of a "baby machine--learning systems designed to achieve great competence,
given very little initial structure. Some of these ideas include genetic programming, robots that learn by
associating sensory-motor patterns, and online chatbots that try to learn language by generalizing from
thousands of conversations. Minsky's complaint was that the problem is not that the concept of a baby
machine is itself unsound, but rather that we don't know how to do it yet. Such approaches have all failed to
make much progress because they started out with inadequate schemes for learning new things. You cannot
teach algebra to a cat; among other things, human infants are already equipped with architectural features
to
equip them to think about the causes of their successes and failures and then to make appropriate changes.
Today we do not yet have enough ideas about how to represent, organize, and use much of commonsense
knowledge, let alone build a machine that could learn all of that automatically on its own. As John
McCarthy noted long ago: "in order for a program to be capable of learning something, it must first be able
to represent that knowledge."
There are very few general-purpose commonsense knowledge resources in the Al community. Doug
Lenat gave a wonderful presentation of the Cyc system, which is presently the project furthest along
at
developing a useful and reusable such resource for the Al community, so that new Al programs don't have
to start with almost nothing. The Cyc project (Lenat 1995) has developed a great many ways to represent
commonsense knowledge, and has built a database of over a million commonsense facts and rules.
However, Lenat estimated that an adult-level commonsense system might require 100 million units
of
commonsense knowledge, and so one of their current directions is to move to a distributed knowledge
acquisition approach, where it is hoped that eventually thousands of volunteer teachers around the world
will work together teach Cyc new commonsense knowledge. Lenat spent some time describing
the
development of friendly interfaces to Cyc that allow nonlogicians to participate in the complicated teaching
and debugging processes involved in building up the Cyc knowledge base.
of the participants agreed that Cyc would be useful, and some suggested we could even base our
effo p of it, but others were sharply critical. Jeffrey Siskind doubted that Cyc contained the spatial
and perceptual knowledge needed to do important kinds of visual scene interpretation. Roger Schank
argued that Cyc's axiomatic approach was unsuitable for making the kinds of generalizations and analogies
that a more case-based and narrative-oriented approach would support. Srini Narayanan worried that the
Cyc project was not adequately based on what cognitive scientists have learned about how people make
commonsense inferences. Oliver Steele concluded that while we disagreed about whether Cyc was 90% of
the solution or only 10%, this was really an empirical question that we would answer during the count of
the project. But generally, the architectural proposal was regarded as complementary to parallel efforts to
accumulate substantial commonsense knowledge bases.
Minsky predicted that if we used Cyc, we might need to augment each existing item of knowledge
with additional kinds of procedural and heuristic knowledge, such as descriptions of (I) problems that this
knowledge item could help solve; (2) ways of thinking that it could participate in; (3) known arguments for
and against using it; and (4) ways to adapt it to new contexts.
It was stressed that knowledge about the world was not enough by itself--we also need a knowledge
base about how to reason, reflect and learn, the knowledge that the reflective layers of the architecture must
possess. The problem remains that the programs we have for using knowledge are not flexible enough, and
neither Cyc's "adult machine" approach of supplying a great deal of world knowledge, nor the "baby
machine" approach of learning common sense from raw sensory-motor experience, will likely succeed
without first developing an architecture that supports multiple ways to reason, learn, and reflect upon and
improve its activities.
EFTA00226807
An Important Application
Several of the participants felt that such a project would not receive substantial support unless it
proposed an application that clearly would benefit much of the world. Not just an improvement to
something existing, it would need to be one that could not be built without being capable of human-level
commonsense reasoning.
After a good deal of argument, several participants converged upon a vision from The Diamond Age,
a novel by Nell Stephenson. That novel envisioned an "intelligent book"--The Young Ladies Illustrated
Primer--that, when given to a young girl, would immediately bond with her and come to understand her so
well as to become a powerful personal tutor and mentor.
This suggested that we could try to build a personalized teaching machine that would adapt itself to
someone's particular circumstances, difficulties, and needs. The system would carry out a conversation with
you, to help you understand a problem or achieve some goal. You could discuss with it such subjects as
how to choose a house or car, how to learn to play a game or get better at some subject, how to decide
whether to go to the doctor, and so forth. It would help you by telling you what to read, stepping you
through solutions, and teaching you about the subject in other ways it found to be effective for you.
Textbooks then could be replaced by systems that know how to explain ideas to you in particular, because
they would know your background, your skills, and how you best learn.
This kind of application could form the basis for a completely new way to interact with computers,
one that bypasses the complexities and limitations of current operating systems. It would use common
sense in many different ways: (I) It would understand human goals so that it could avoid the silliest
mistakes. (2) It would understand human reasoning so that it could present you with the right level of detail
and avoid saying things that you probably interred. (3) It would converse in natural language so that you
could easily talk to it about complex matters without having to learn a special language or complex
interface.
To build such a kind of "helping machine." we would first need to give it knowledge about space,
time, beliefs, plans, stories, mistakes, successes, relationships, and so forth, as well as good conversational
skills. However, little of this could be realized by anything less than a system with common sense. To
accomplish this we would need to pursue some sequence of more modest goals that would help one with
simpler problem types—until the system achieved the sorts of competence that we expect from a typical
human four- or five-year-old.
However, to get such a system to work, we would need to address many presently unsolved
commonsense problems that show up in the model-world problem domain.
Final Consensus
The participants agreed that no single technique (such as statistics, logic, or neural networks) could
cope with a sufficiently wide range of problem-types. To achieve human-level intelligence we must create
an architecture that can support many different ways to represent, acquire, and apply many kinds of
commonsense knowledge.
Most participants agreed that we should combine our efforts to develop a model world that supports
simplified versions of everyday physical, social, and psychological problems. This simplified world would
then be used to develop and debug the core components of the architecture. Later, we can expand it to solve
more difficult and more practical problems.
The participants did not all agree on which particular larger-scale application would both attract
sufficient support and also produce substantial progress toward making machines that use commonsense
knowledge. Still, many agreed with the concept of a personalized teaching machine that would come to
understand you so well that it could adapt to your particular circumstances, difficulties, and needs.
Ben Kuipers sketched the diagram shown in figure 8, which captures the general dependencies
between the three points of consensus: Practical applications depend on developing an architecture for
commonsense thinking flexible enough to integrate a wide array of processes and representations of
problems that come up in the model-world problem domain.
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
EFTA00226808
A Collaborative Project?
At the end of the meeting, we brainstormed about how we might organize a distributed, collaborative
project to build an architecture based on the ideas discussed at this meeting. It is a difficult challenge, both
technically and socially, to get a community of researchers to work on a common project. However.
successes in the Open Source community show that such distributed projects are feasible when the
components can be reasonably disassociated.
Furthermore, this kind of architecture itself should help to make it easy for members of the project to
add new types of representations and processes. However, we first would have to develop a set of protocols
to support the interoperation of such a diverse array of methods. Erik Mueller suggested that such an
organization could be modeled after the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), and its job would largely be
to assess, standardize and publish the protocols and underlying tools that such a distributed effort would
demand.
While we did not sketch a detailed plan for how to proceed, Aaron Sloman, Erik Mueller and Push
Singh listed some technical steps that such a project would need:
First, it should not be too hard to develop a suitable virtual model world, because the present-day
video game and computer graphics industry has produced most of the required components. These should
already include adequate libraries for computer graphics, physics simulation, collision detection, and so
forth.
Second. we need to develop and order the set of miniscenarios that we will use to organize and
evaluate our progress. This would be a continuous process, as new types of problems will constantly be
identified.
Third, what kinds of protocols could the agents of this cognitive system use to coordinate with each
other? This would include messages for updating representations, describing goals, identifying impasses,
requesting knowledge, and so forth. We would consider the radical proposal to use, for this, an Interlingua
based on a simplified form of English, rather than trying to develop some brand new ontology for
expressing commonsense ideas. Of course. each individual agent could be free to use internally whatever
ontology or representation scheme was most convenient and useful.
Fourth, we would need to create a comprehensive catalog of ways-to-think, to incorporate into the
architecture. A commonsense system should be at least capable of reasoning about prediction, explanation.
generalization, exemplification, planning. diagnosis, reflection, debugging, learning, and abstracting.
Fifth, what are the kinds of self-reflections that a commonsense system should be able to make of
itself, and how should these invoke and modify ways-to-think as problems are encountered?
Sixth, in any case, such a system will need a substantial, general-purpose, and reusable commonsense
knowledge base about the spatial, physical, bodily, social, psychological, reflective, and other important
realms, enough to deal with a broad range of problems within the model world problem domain.
Finally, we might need to develop a new kind of "intention-based" programming language to support
the construction of such an architecture.
Towards the Future
Since our meeting similar sentiments have been expressed at DARPA, most notably in the recent
"Cognitive Systems" Information Processing Technology Office (IPTO) Broad Agency Announcement
(BAA) (Brachman and Lemnios 2002), which solicits proposals for building Al systems that combine
many elements of knowledge, reasoning, and learning. While we are gratified that architectural approaches
are becoming more popular, we would like to see more emphasis placed on architectural designs that
specifically support more common sense styles of thinking.
There was a genuine sense of excitement at this meeting. The participants felt that it was a rare
opportunity to focus once more on the grand goal of building a human-level intelligence. Over the next few
years, we plan to develop a concrete implementation of an architecture based on the ideas discussed at this
meeting, and we invite the rest of the Al community to join us in such efforts.
Acknowledgements
EFTA00226809
We would like to thank Cecile Dejongh for taking care of the local arrangements, and extend a very
special thanks to for making this meeting happen. This meeting was made possible by the
generous support ofJeffrev &Mehl,
Note
(I.) This meeting was held in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, on April 14-16, 2002. The meeting
included the following participants: Larry Birnbaum (Northwestern University), Ken Forbus (Northwestern
University), Ben Kuipers (University of Texas at Austin),,las Lanai (Cycorp), Henry Lieberman
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Henry Minsky ( Systems), Marvin Minsky (Massachusetts
Institute of Technology), Erik Mueller (IBM T. J. Watson Research Center), Srini Narayanan (University
of California, Berkeley), Ashwin Ram (Georgia Institute of Technology), Doug Riecken (IBM T. J. Watson
Research Center), Roger Schank (Carnegie Mellon University), Mary Shepard (Cycorp), Push Singh
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology), le ark Purdue Aaron Sloman
(University of Birmingham), Oliver Steele (1111Systems), (independent consultant), Vemor
Vinge (San Diego State University), and Michael Witbrock (Cycorp).
References
Brachman, Ronald; and Lenudos, Zachary 2002. DARPA's New Cognitive Systems Vision.
Computing Research News, 14(5):I, 8.
Kitano, Hiroaki; Asada, Minoru; Kuniyoshi, Yasuo; Noda, Itsuki; Osawa, Eiichi; and Maisubara,
Hitoshi. 1997. RoboCup: A Challenge problem for Al. AI Magazine, 18( I ):73-85.
Laird, John; Newell, Allen; and Rosenbloom, Paul 1987. SOAR: An Architecture for General
Intelligence. AI Journal, 33(1):1.64.
Lenat, Doug. 1995. CYC: A Large-scale Investment in Knowledge Infrastructure. Communications of
the ACM, 38(11):33-38.
McCarthy, John; Minsky, Marvin; Sloman, Aaron; Gong, Leiguang; Lau, Tessa; Morgenstern, Leona;
Mueller, Erik; Riecken, Doug; Singh, Moninder; and Singh, Push 2002. An Architecture of Diversity for
Commonsense Reasoning. IBM Systems Journal, 41(3):530-539.
Minsky, Marvin. (forthcoming). The Emotion Machine. Pantheon, New York. Several chapters are
on-line at hitp://web.media.mit.edu/people/minsky
Minsky, Marvin 1992. Future of AI Technologl. Toshiba Review, 47(7).
Singh, Push ; and Minsky, Marvin. 2003. An Architecture for Combining Ways to Think. Paper
presented at the International Conference on Knowledge Intensive Multi-Agent Systems. Cambridge,
Mass., September 30--October 3.
Sloman, Aaron 2001. Beyond Shallow Models of Emotion. Cognitive Processing, 1(1):530-539.
Marvin Minsky has made many contributions to Al, cognitive psychology, mathematics,
computational linguistics, robotics, and optics. In recent years he has worked chiefly on imparting to
machines the human capacity for commonsense reasoning. His conception of human intellectual structure
and function is presented in The Society of Mind which is also the title of the course he teaches at MIT. He
received his B.A. and Ph.D. in mathematics at Harvard and Princeton. In 1951 he built the SNARC, the
first neural network simulator. His other inventions include mechanical hands and other robotic devices, the
confocal scanning microscope, the "Muse" synthesizer for musical variations (with E. Fredkin), and the
first LOGO "turtle" (with S. Papert). A member of the NAS, NAE and Argentine NAS, he has received the
ACM Turing Award, the MIT Killian Award, the Japan Prize, the MAI Research Excellence Award, the
Rank Prize and the Robert Wood Prize for Optoelectronics, and the Benjamin Franklin Medal.
Push Singh is a doctoral candidate in MIT's Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science. His research is focused on finding ways to give computers humanlike common sense, and he is
presently collaborating with Marvin Minsky to develop an architecture for commonsense thinking that
makes use of many types of mechanisms for reasoning, representation, and reflection. He started the Open
Mind Common Sense project at MIT, an effort to build large-scale commonsense knowledge bases by
turning to the general public, and has worked on incorporating commonsense reasoning into a variety of
EFTA00226810
real-world applications. Singh received his B.S. and M.Eng. in electrical engineering and computer science
from MIT.
Aaron Sloman is a professor of AI and cognitive science at the University of Birmingham, UK. He
received his B.Sc. in mathematics and physics (Cape Town, 1956), and a D.Phil. Philosophy, from Oxford
(1962). Sloman is a Rhodes Scholar, a Fellow of AAAI, AISB, and ECCAI. He is also author of The
Computer Revolution in Philosophy (1978) and many theoretical papers on vision, diagrammatic
reasoning, forms of representation, architectures, emotions, consciousness, philosophy of AI, and tools for
exploring architectures. Sloman maintains the FreePoplog open source web site and is about to embark on a
large EC-funded robotics project. All papers, presentations, and software are accessible from his home
page: www.cs.bham.ac.uk/ axs/
RELATED ARTICLE: Establishing a Collection of Graded Miniscenarios.
How would we guide such a project and measure its progress over time? Some participants suggested
trying to emulate the abilities of human children at various ages. However, others argued that while this
should inspire us, we should not use it as a plan for the project, because we don't really yet know enough
about the details of early human mental development.
Aaron Sloman argued that it might be better to try to model the mind of a four- or five-year-old human
child because that might lead more directll toward more substantial adult abilities. After the meeting,
Sloman developed the notion of a "commonsense miniscenario," a concrete description in the form of a
simple storyboard of a particular skill that a commonsense architecture should be able to demonstrate. Each
miniscenario has several features: (1) It describes some forms of competence, which are robust insofar as
they can cope with wide ranges of variation in the conditions; and (2) each comes with some meta-
competence for thinking and speaking about what was done. For example competence can have a number
of different facets, including describing the process; explaining why something was done, or why
something else would not have worked; being able to answer hypothetical questions about what would
happen otherwise; being able to improve performance in such ways as improving fluency, removing bugs
in strategies. and expanding the variety of contexts. The system should also be able to further justify these
kinds of remarks.
Sloman proposed this example of a sequence of increasingly sophisticated such miniscenarios in the
proposed multi-robot problem domain:
1. Person wants to get box from high shelf. Ladder is in place. Person climbs ladder, picks up box, and
climbs down.
2. As for 1, except that the person climbs ladder, fords he can't reach the box because it's too far to one
side, so he climbs down, moves the ladder sideways, then as 1.
3. As for 1, except that the ladder is lying on the floor at the far end of the room. He drags it across the
room lifts it against the wall, then as I.
4. As for 1, except that if asked while climbing the ladder why he is climbing it the person ansivers:
something like "To get the box." it should understand why "To get to the top of the ladder" or "To increase
my height above the floor" would be inappropriate, albeit correct.
5. As for 2 and 3, except that when asked, "Why are you moving the ladder?" the person gives a
sensible reply. This can depend in complex ways on the previous contexts, as when there is already a ladder
closer to the box, but which looks unsafe or has just been painted. If asked, "would it be safe to climb if the
foot of the ladder is right up against the wall?" the person can reply with an answer that shows an
understanding of the physics and geometry of the situation.
6. The ladder is not long enough to reach the shelf if put against the wall at a safe angle for climbing.
Another person suggests moving the bottom closer to the wall, and offers to hold the bottom of the ladder
to make it safe. If asked why holding it will make it safe, gives a sensible answer about preventing rotation
of ladder.
7. There is no ladder, but there are wooden rungs, and rails with holes from which a ladder can be
constructed. The person makes a ladder and then acts as in previous scenarios. (This needs further
EFTA00226811
unpacking, e.g. regarding sensible sequences of actions, things that can go wrong during the construction,
and how to recover from them, etc.)
8. As for 7, but the rungs fit only loosely into the holes in the rails. Person assembles the ladder but
refines to climb up it, and if asked why can explain why it is unsafe.
9. Person watching another who is about to climb up the ladder with loose rungs should be able to
explain that a calamity could result, that the other might be hurt, and that people don't like being hurt.
Such a system should be made to face a substantial library of such graded sequences of mini-scenarios
that require it both to learn new skills, to improve its abilities to reflect on them, and (with practice) to
become much more fluent and quick at achieving these tasks. These orderings should be based on such
factors as the required complexity of objects, processes, and knowledge involved, the linguistic competence
required, and the understanding of how others think and feel. That library could include all sorts of things
children learn to do in such various contexts as dressing and undressing dolls, coloring in a picture book,
taking a bath (or washing a dog), making toys out of Meccano and other construction kits, eating a meal,
feeding a baby, cleaning a mess made by spilling some powder or liquid, reading a story and answering
questions about it, making up stories, discussing behavior of a naughty person, and learning to think and
talk about the past, the future, and about distant places, etc.
IAC-CREATE-DATE: July 8, 2004
LOAD-DATE: July 09, 2004
EFTA00226812
301 of 1456 DOCUMENTS
Copyright 2005 Gale Group, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
ASAP
Copyright 2005 American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Daedalus
June 22, 2005
SECTION: Pg. 42(10) Vol. 134 No. 3 ISSN: 0011-5266
ACC-NO: 135697725
LENGTH: 5572 words
HEADLINE: Compromised work.
BYLINE: Gardner, Howard
BODY:
One would like to find an abundance of good workers across the professions: teachers who have
mastered their subject matter. present itwell, and behave in a civil manner toward students and peers;
physicians who are knowledgeable about the latest techniques and medications and who cater to the ill no
matter where they are encountered and whether die' have resources; lawyers who can argue a case
persuasivelyand who make their services available to those in need, irrespectiveof their ability to pay.
Occasionally the impressive achievements ofsuch individuals are publicly honored; and those concerned
about thelong-term welfare of the society hope that aspiring teachers, physicians, and lawyers will have
ample exposure to such exemplars of good work.
Not surprisingly, the absence of good work commands the attention of scholars, journalists, dramatists,
politicians, and ordinary folk.We are, perhaps naturally, perhaps understandably, fascinated to learn about
the teacher who fails an exam or seduces a student; the physician who fakes her credentials or operates on
the wrong patient; thelawyer who skirts the law or only defends the wealthy. As a friend quipped, Time
Warner might sell more copies if it renamed its venerable business publication Misfortune.
In the GoodWork Project in which my colleagues and I are involved,we are focusing on those
individuals and institutions that aspire toward, and in the happiest case, exemplify, good work. There is
much to be learned from careful study of a journalist like Edward R. Morrow, a physician like Albert
Schweitzer, a publisher like Katharine Graham, a public servant like John Gardner (no relation). Yet it is
important to recognize that many individuals fail to achieve good work, that some do not even strive to be
good workers, and that in the absence of compelling role models, future workers stand little chance of
becoming good workers themselves. Hence, it is justifiable at times to suspend our focus on good work to
see what can be learned from frankly deviant cases.
In what follows, I focus on what we have come to speak of as 'compromised work.' (I) We
conceptualize this variant as work that is not,strictly speaking, illegal, but whose quality compromises the
ethical core of a profession. We do not concern ourselves with individuals who merit the descriptor 'bad
workers'--the journalist who steals, the physician who commits assault and battery, the lawyer who
murders. Presumably these individuals would engage in such illegal acts irrespective of their professional
status, and it is the job of law enforcement officials, and not of professional gate-keepers, to call these
miscreants to account. Rather, our concern is with the journalist who makes up stories, the politician whose
word has no warrant, the physician who fails to heed the latest medical innovations and thus provides
substandard treatment. Each of these individuals may at one time have embraced core values—journalistic
integrity, political veracity,medical acumen—but at some point turned his back on the profession.lf we can
better understand how once good workers begin to compromise their work, we may be able to enhance the
ranks of good workers.
EFTA00226813
It is easiest to spot compromised work in professions that have existed for some time and whose
principal values are widely shared. In such domains there should be consensual processes of training,
recognized mentors, and established procedures in place for censuring or ostracizing those whose work
violates norms of the domain, with disbarment or loss of license as the ultimate sanction. Of the three
professions I will treat in this essay. law is closest to the prototype, journalism is furthest (many journalists
lack formal training), and accounting is somewhere in between.
Since our project began (and no doubt long before), the pages of the newspapers have been filled with
examples of compromised work; indeed, in preparing this essay I have sometimes been tempted to clip half
the stories in the daily newspaper. Here I focus on three cases from recent years that caught both my
attention and that of the broaderpublic. The first case involves Jayson Blair, an ambitious reporter for The
New York Times who was fired after it was discovered he had plagiarized and fabricated stories. The
second case centers on Hill and Barlow, a venerable Boston law fum that closed abruptly when its
profitable real estate department announced it was leaving the firm. The third case centers on the flagship
accounting firm Arthur Andersenthat went bankrupt after the Enron scandal of 2001.
In my initial study of compromised work, (2) I chose these cases because they apparently represented
three levels of analysis: Jayson Blair as an instance of compromised work by a single, flawed individual;
Hill and Barlow as an instance of compromised work within a singleinstitution; and the Arthur Andersen--
Enron debacle as an instance of compromised work throughout a profession. My study revealed, however,
surprising continuities across these three apparently distinct levels of analysis. In each case. I found I was
studying individuals as well as institutions, and, indeed, an entire industry. Also to my surprise, I
discovered that institutions held in high regard might be especially vulnerable to the insidious virus of
compromised work; I hadexpected that such institutions harbored righting mechanisms that for some reason
had failed to detect the of fending party. Finally, I expected that at least some instances of compromised
work would be isolated and of relatively short duration. A far more complex and, to mymind, more
troubling picture emerged--a picture that, moreover, reflects ominous trends in American society.
In 1999, Jayson Blair. a young African American with a flair for writing, became a regular reporter for
The New York Times. Even beforehis stint at the Times, Blair had been regarded by peers and supervisors
with a combination of admiration and suspicion. There was no question that Blair wrote well, had a nose
for important stories, was a gifted schmoozer, and had impressed the governing powers at the college and
community newspapers where he had worked. At the same time, observers wondered whether he in fact
had exercised the due diligence that is expected of a reporter; and indeed, supervisors had detected ahighly
unusual number of errors in his stories. While he had occasionally been admonished for carelessness, there
had been few consequences. In fact, at the Times, Executive Editor Howell Raines and Managing Editor
Gerald Boyd gave increasingly important assignments to Blair.
When Blair was discovered to have plagiarized a story from the SanAntonio Express-News, he was
immediately forced to resign. Then on May II, 2003, in an unprecedented bout of self-examination, The
New York Times devoted over four full pages to documentation of numerous cases of invention,
plagiarism, and fraudulent expense and travel reports. Nor did the brouhaha over the Blair affair die down.
Six weeks later, editors Raines and Boyd were forced to resign their posts, and the new editorial regime at
the Times explicitly dissociated itself from the policies and practices of its predecessors.
At first blush, Jayson Blair seemed to be an isolated case--a reporter who refused to play by the rules
and who may well have been emotionally disturbed. And in fact, there is ample evidence that Blair was a
troubled young man who should have been carefully scrutinized foryears. He was so unpopular at his
college newspaper that he was relieved of his editorial position. When he was an intern at The Boston
Globe in 1996-1997 and a freelancer there in 1998.1999, the sloppinessof his coverage was discussed.
Shortly after he began to work full-time at the Times, Metropolitan Editor Jonathan Landman sent around a
note that said, "We have got to stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now." Blair soon
accumulated a record number of corrections and complaints about his coverage. His behavior aroused
dislike and suspicion among many of his contemporaries. But despite ample warning signs, Raines and
Boyd took him under their wings; he was praised andoffered ever-more important assignments. And, to the
shame of the Times, the decisive discovery of plagiarism was made not by its own staff but by a reporter
for a regional paper.
EFTA00226814
To be sure, Blair had been a bad egg whose misbehaviors were more flagrant than those of his
contemporaries. But at least since publisher Arthur Sulzberger had appointed Raines as managing editor in
2001,a strong set of explicit and implicit signals had been sent to the Times staff. Reporters were told they
had to increase the "competitivemetabolism" of the news coverage. Those who wrote flashy, trendy stories
were rewarded with promotions, special privileges, and ample front-page coverage. In contrast, reporters
who took a more thoughtful, less sensational approach, who emphasized the journalistic precept
ofcarefulness, found themselves increasingly marginalized. Nor was this new culture a secret: in a much-
discussed portrait of Raines that appeared in The New Yorker in June of 2002, the changing milieu at
theTimes was detailed and critiqued.
Had Jayson Blair been a truly isolated case, it is highly likely that the Sulzberger-Raines-Boyd
managerial team would have survived intact and perhaps continued its questionably hectic pace and
excessively dramatic bent. Once the Blair case broke, however, other heroes and casualties soon emerged.
The most flagrant consequence was the abrupt resignation of star reporter Rick Bragg, who was accused of
using unacknowledged stringers and of embellislitis lengthy and highly evocative stories. While Raines
and Boyd fought to keep their positions. it was inevitable that sooner or later they would be
squeezed out. The replacement appointment of Bill Keller, an individual widely considered a contrast in
temperament and journalistic values, served as a sign that the Times was rejecting the go-go atmosphere of
the previous few years.
Under Raines and Boyd, the Times had been engaged in an example ofwhat I will call 'superficial
alignment' The editors were looking for young reporters who exemplified the pace and coverage they
sought;the fact that Blair was African American was a bonus and, by the editors' own admission, caused
them to cut him slack. For his part, Blair was keen at discerning what his editors desired; and, as befits an
accomplished con man, he knew how to give the impression of good workand to cover his tracks. What
both sides avoided in this pas de deuxwas a genuine alignment that honored the tried-and-true mission of
journalism. Had Blair been subjected to a minoring regime of tough love, he might have turned into a
genuine' good reporter. And had he somehow slipped through an otherwise well-regulated training and
supervision system, it is unlikely that the discovery of his misdeeds would have caused such turmoil in his
company and, indeed, in the wider journalistic profession.
During the second week of December of 2002, residents of Boston were astonished to learn that the
prestigious law firm Hill and Barlow had closed down the previous weekend. The farm had been in
existence for over a century, was esteemed in the community, and comprised in its legal ranks many
prominent citizens, including at various times three governors of the Commonwealth. With their deep
involvement in thecommunity--exemplified by their defense in the famous Sacco-Vanzetticase of the
I 920s--Hill and Barlow partners epitomized what legal scholar Anthony Kronman has called "lawyer
statesmen." For outsiders, there was little reason to suspect any significant problems at Hill and Barlow--
and none whatsoever to prepare them for its sudden dissolution.
A word about partnerships is in order here. Examination of about twelve hundred interviews in the
eight domains considered in the GoodWork Project reveals that only lawyers speak regularly about
partnerships. In part a financial arrangement, in part a social network, the partnership serves as the locus for
daily activity, the attraction andsharing of clients, and the mechanism for services and payment. The
transition from associate to partner is the legal equivalent of the attainment of tenure in the academy; and in
many ways, partners behavelike members of a faculty. Young lawyers serve as associates until, assuming a
good record and available slots, they arc welcomed into the partnership, which is likely to be their home for
the remainder of their professional lives. It goes without saying that the health and stability of the
partnership is crucial for its constituent members, staff, and clients.
Each partnership has an institutional culture, passed on both explicitly and implicitly from the older
partners to the new members of the association. By all reports, the institutional culture of the Hilland
Barlow of old stressed intellectual and legal excellence; community service, including the holding of
elected or appointed office; and a willingness to earn somewhat less money than competitors, in return for a
lifestyle that was more balanced and that went beyond the sheer number and rate of billable hours. (3)
Outsiders' initial reaction to the sudden closure of Hill and Barlow was shock. After all, this was a
partnership that had been highly esteemed for decades. To observers and the media, it appeared that overly
avaricious lawyers from the real estate division had issued a fait accompli to their bewildered colleagues,
EFTA00226815
thereby in one act destroying a distinguished New England law firm. The shock was compounded by the
fact that the remaining partners did not even try to reconstitute the firm, but instead interpreted this mass
exodus as a sign that the firm could no longer survive.
Closer examination reveals that the problems went back many years,perhaps several decades. Through
the middle of the twentieth century, Hill and Barlow did indeed have a deserved reputation as a firm of
outstanding lawyer statesmen who not only were leaders in litigation and trusts, but who also stood out for
their service to the community. Yet, on my analysis, this sterling reputation turns out to have been a mixed
blessing. By the 1970s and 1980s, the situation in law had changed dramatically throughout the land.
Whether lamented or not, the era of the lawyer statesman was over. Law firms were becoming much larger
and more internationalized; corporate law divisions and the high-metabolism specialty of mergers and
acquisitions were growing morerapidly than other spheres; many large corporations built up their own in-
house legal teams; and individual lawyers were becoming far more mobile, as opportunities to make very
large salaries materialized for those who were willing to jump ship.
None of these trends in itself necessitated a de-professionalization of the law. And indeed, many
moderately sized law firms in New England and elsewhere took steps to modulate these trends: they
increased in size or developed distinctive niches; they actively sought largecorporate clients; and they
reconfigured salary schedules to reward those lawyers who brought in the most business. Perhaps most
importantly, the more reflective firms realized that law was becoming more ofa business; they recruited or
trained professional managers; they were sensitive to the clout of specific partners and divisions; they paid
close attention to changing patterns of income and expenses; they established governance vehicles whereby
the most important members consulted regularly about trends and how best to meet them; they favored
frequent, open, frank communications about all matters that materially affected the firm; and they were
prepared, when necessary and with regret, to retire or marginalize partners who could not in any
demonstrable way contribute to the well-being of the firm.
According to our interviews with former members of Hill and Barlow, the firm did not seriously
undertake any of these measures. Memberscontinued to take pride in the history of the firm, and many
continued to serve the community in various ways. But they did not work any longer as a firm of dedicated
partners (epithets such as 'a hotel forlawyers and 'university-style governance were used 11
informants).Costs spiraled, but steps were not taken to increase income commensurately (or to lower costs,
for example, by reducing the number of associates or moving to less luxurious quarters). Most damaging,
the lawfirm never was able to create a governance structure that was widelyrespected by its members and
that could meet these various challenges. On my analysis, it was the combination of the inordinately
successful real estate group, on the one hand, and the ensemble of dysfunctional governance structures, on
the other, that made the firm's closure inevitable.
I do not conclude that the Hill and Barlow partners necessarily compromised their practice of law per
se. I do believe that both the real estate division, and the remaining partners who failed to deal decisively
with the shifting terrain, undermined law as a profession. Inacting in their own self-interest, they
contributed to the destruction of the accumulated wisdom, public service emphasis, and pluralistic view of
legal practice that had once characterized Hill and Barlow.To the extent that law simply becomes a
collection of free-agent practitioners, for sale to the highest bidder, or a set of employees of multinational
corporations, it will indeed be a diminished profession.
Accounting became a technical rather than back-of-the-envelope practice in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries with the widespreaduse of double-entry bookkeeping and other financial and business
innovations. With the rise of corporations a century ago, and the adventof increasingly complex taxation
and investment policies, the role of the independent certified auditor gained steadily in importance.
Particularly at times of crisis, such as the stock market collapses during the first two-thirds of the twentieth
century, the public was reminded of the importance of the accounting professions. Perhaps to hisadvantage,
the auditor was seen as a rather colorless individual whofollowed technical rules in the manner of the
archetypical Dickensian clerk or Weberian bureaucrat.
Within the profession and amongst those with close ties to the profession, there was keen awareness of
crucial shifts that began in the1970s. The wall that had once separated auditors from the firms theywere
monitoring had begun to crumble. Increasingly, personnel circulated between accounting firms and well-
heeled client firms. Accounting firms set up consulting branches that worked with client firms; over time
EFTA00226816
the amount of consulting business often equaled or even surpassed that dedicated to the monitoring of the
books. In the go-go financial milieu of the 1980s and 1990s, as documented in our GoodWork Project and
many other sources, markets became increasingly dominant in many spheres of life. Indeed, at the end of
the 1990s,1 made a quip that turned out to be uncannily prophetic: "If markets come to control everything,
in the end there will be only one profession--accounting. And that is because only the auditors will be able
to tell us whether the books are on the level or have been cooked."
But like most of the public, I was unprepared for the huge accounting scandals that captured the
headlines at the start of the twenty-first century. Led by the renowned firm Arthur Andersen, all the
majorfirms were shown to have abandoned their professional disinterestedness (or 'independence,' as it is
referred to in the profession) in flagrant ways. It was no longer unusual for accountants to hold stock in,
work for, or consult for the firms they were allegedly monitoring;and for their part, firms went out of their
way to provide lucrativework and extra perks for the supposedly independent auditors.
The smoking gun was the relationship between energy giant Enron and the flagship professional
services firm of Arthur Andersen. These rums met powerful sanctions: bankruptcy with possible jail terms
for those high-level managers whose involvement crossed the line from compromised to frankly bad work.
At the time of this writing, other major accounting firms like Ernst and Young and
PricewaterhouseCoopers have also had to pay significant penalties; punitive new regulations and legislation
have been put into place; and many other business firms--established ones like General Electric and Xerox,
newer ones like Tyco, WorldCom, and Global Crossing--have undergone probes or have even dissolved.
Mean-while, the tacit or demonstrable complicity of members of boards of directors has been amply
documented, and the domain of accounting as a whole lies very much under suspicion, its standingas a
profession open to strong challenge.
The core value of the profession of public accounting is captured in the descriptor public.' Accountants
receive training, licenses, and status commensurate thereto on the assumption that they will represent the
public's interest in their review of the financial practicesof individuals or corporations. Should the books
appear questionablein any way, it is the duty of the public accountant to raise questions to the responsible
individual or corporation, and, if necessary, to refuse to certify that the accounts conform to generally
accepted accounting principles.
Whether one thinks of journalism, law, or accounting, it is tempting to posit a golden age--a time when
professionals were professionals, and the vast majority exemplified the highest values of the domain. But
the mixed reputation of lawyers and journalists over the decades reveals the superficiality of such an
analysis. And when one examines the history of accounting in the United States in the twentieth century,
one also discovers an oscillation between periods when auditors were under suspicion for questionable
practices, and periods when corrective measures were installed and the prestige of the profession was
restored. Indeed, such a swing of the pendulum can be seen in thehistory of Arthur Andersen.
At the start of the twentieth century, like other accounting firms, Andersen carried out non-audit
services. By the 1960s, it was possible to become an Andersen consultant without having worked as an
auditor for the two prior years; and in 1973, a separate consulting arm of the firm had been set up. In the
late 1970s, CEO Harvey Kapnick tried unsuccessfully to split the time into two separate entities and was
pressured to resign thereafter. During the 1980s, the consulting arm of the firm became increasingly
powerful, and the lines between consulting and auditing blurred. By the late 1980s, the tension between the
accounting and consulting anus was so acute that the two parts ofthe firm were in constant argument and
occasionally in court. By 1999, Arthur Andersen had become the slowest growing of the Big Five
accounting firms, and in 2000, the consulting arm, Accenture, finally became a wholly independent entity.
As is now well known, Andersen had become the auditor for Enron. Widely touted as a model for a
new kind of company for a new millennium, Enron trafficked in the selling of energy (especially gas) and
energy futures. In 2000, it was, on paper, the seventh largest firm in the United States, with a book value of
100 billion dollars. In 2001, the Enron bubble burst when it became clear that much of the corporation's
alleged size, activity, and profitability was in fact fraudulent, the result of imaginative advertising and
improper accounting. Andwhen Arthur Andersen began to shred its Enron documents, the fate ofthe firm
was sealed in the eyes of the media, the general public, and, eventually, the legal system.
EFTA00226817
Studies of the Andersen-Enron connection reveal that it had been deeply compromised for years.
Enron was one of Andersen's largest clients; it paid a total of over fifty million dollars a year to Andersen's
auditing, consulting, and tax divisions. Employees shuttled back and forth between the two companies with
such ease and frequency that it was sometimes difficult to tell for which they were working; at least eighty
former Andersen auditors were working for Enron. The supposed line between the company being audited
and the auditors evaluating the books of that company had become so blurted that, in effect, itno longer
existed. And yet it has proved difficult to demonstrate sheer illegality. This is both because the nature of
Enron's business was so new and so convoluted, and because so much of the role of the auditor/accountant
remains an issue of professional judgment rather than of sheer legality or illegality.
In my view, the chief embodiment of compromised work in the accounting profession is the condition
of wearing two hats--hats that inevitably pit key interests against one another. On the one hand, as
representatives of the public, auditors and their umbrella organizations are supposed to remain at arm's
length from the companies they monitor. On the other hand, the excitement and the monetary gains
availablefor consulting prove irresistibly seductive for many auditors and their umbrella organizations. One
cannot at the same time offer advice and feedback to companies while standing disinterestedly apart from
their practices: in effect, one has become judge and litigant at the same time.
In each of the cases discussed, the background history covered a much longer period than I had
anticipated. Jayson Blair's case reflected larger-scale trends at the Times, dating back to the 1980s and
exacerbated by the appointment of a new managerial regime in 2001: Hill and Barlow failed to recognize.
let alone adapt to. forces that middle-sized law firms had been confronting for decades; and Arthur
Andersen encountered longstanding tensions in the accounting profession regarding appropriate relations
with clients. Nor are the cases restricted to the particular examples on which I happened to focus: Within
journalism, similar scandals had occurred in recent years at The BostonGlobe, The Washington Post, USA
Today, and The New Republic. Severaldozen major law firms in Boston and elsewhere had either closed
downor were absorbed into larger and more profitable firms. In recent years, each of the Big Five
accounting firms saw significant scandals; comparable 'multiple hats' problems arose in Europe and Asia:
and compensatory legislation like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act caused turbulence in a great many American
corporations. Whatever their usefulness for conceptualization and exposition, the three levels of analysis
that I had selected turned out to be more closely related than I had expected.
If the study of good work is in its early adolescence, then the examination of compromised work is in
its infancy. Finn conclusions would be decidedly premature. And yet, given the importance of the problem,
and its indissoluble links to issues of good work, a ■ summary comments are in order.
Because persons and institutions can go bad for any number of reasons, isolated cases of compromised
work cannot be prevented. What is susceptible to treatment is the soil in which compromised work is likely
to arise and thrive. Our three cases and others that could have been treated suggest that superficial signs of
alignment can in fact be the enemies of good work. Respected institutions like The New York Times, Hill
and Barlow, and Arthur Andersen create in their members--and in the general public--the belief that these
institutions are inherently good and above suspicion. Those assigned the job of surveillance internally or
externally may become lax, and, accordingly, those who are tempted to practice compromised work may
find an unexpectedlypromising breeding ground. (In writing about the Jayson Blair case in The New
Yorker of June 30, 2003, Elizabeth Kolben said that this "paper of record" cannot afford to "check up" on
its employees; it hasto assume they are trustworthy.)
Indeed, these circumstances obtained in each of our three examples: layson Blair was on the make:
Raines and Boyd wanted to remake the culture of the Times even at the cost of violating its most
imponantvalues. And while various alarm bells tolled, none sounded loudly enough or insistently enough
to be heard. Despite the enviable reputation of Hill and Barlow, many lawyers left the partnership starting
in the 1980s; the particular requests of the real estate group were not taken seriously enough; and attempts
to address the issue of financial survival and partnership communication were undertaken too late andwith
too little sense of urgency. Arthur Andersen had actually resisted temptations to enter the consulting world.
But when it finally succumbed, it entered with a vengeance--and despite warnings about conflicts of
interest. Spokespersons for the firm continued to enunciate the fundamentals of accounting, but too many
partners and workers were trying to wear two incompatible hats. When the ambivalent Andersen
encountered the swashbuckling Enron, a disaster was in the making.
EFTA00226818
In each case, superficial features and blandishments obscured the central values of the domain. During
the Blair-Raines period at the Times, scrupulous and fair reporting was sacrificed to the
immediatelyaccessible and sexy. At Hill and Barlow, the norms of an effective partnership were
undermined, as lawyers and entire departments went their own selfish way. And sometime in the last few
decades, those responsible for the atmosphere of an accounting company forgot that it was supposed to be a
public trust. Those on the inside should have seenthese problems and made loud noises, but efforts to right
the culture were too weak and ineffective. And so in each case it took a dramatic event--Blait's plagiarism,
the real estate department's exodus, the Enron meltdown--to reveal what should have been clearer to those
onthe outside and clearest to those entrusted with preserving and embodying the values of the domain.
What happens when such a critical point is reached? It is possible, of course, that the domain will
continue to deteriorate, and may come to be replaced altogeti er. Newspaper editor Harold Evans has
quipped, "The problem many organizations face is not to sta in business but to stay in journalism" The
lawyer statesman no longer exists; it remains unclear whether he is being replaced by a viable option, or
whether lawyers have just become high-priced free agents or cogs in a corporate legal machine. And if
there are too many Enrons and Global Crossings, the Big Five will dwindle to Little Zero--and it is not
clear whether the books will be monitored in the future by independent accountants, government officials,
or private investigators.
It is also possible that these professions will continue to survive but attract a different type of person
with different kinds of values. With few exceptions, for example, broadcast television joumalismexists as
entertainment rather than as news. Totalitarian countries have bookkeepers, but, as the old joke goes, they
produce "whatever numbers you would like us to produce." And it is certainly possible tohave lawyer
whores who sell their services to the highest bidder. Insuch cases, those who want to know what is really
happening in the world, whether the books are really accurate, or whether they can get a fair trial, will no
longer look to the members of the ascribed profession.
One goal of the GoodWork Project is to help bring about a happier scenario. Professions will always
feel pressures of one type or another, and, at the time of powerful market forces, these pressures can be
decisive. The forces cannot be ignored; they must be dealt with--but they must not be succumbed to. Those
individuals, institutions, andprofessions that actively cope with these forces while adhering to the central
and irreplaceable values of the domain are most likely to survive and to thrive.
How to do this? In our project, we speak of the four Ms that help to propagate good work (these were
initially designed to address individuals, but they can be applied as well to institutions and even whole
professions). The Ms seek answers to the following questions: Whatis the mission of our domain? What are
the positive and negative models that we must keep in mind? When we look into the mirror as individual
professionals, are we proud or embarrassed by what we see? And: When we hold up the mirror to our
profession--or, indeed, our society--as a whole, are we proud or embarrassed by what we see? And, if
thelatter, what arc we prepared to do about it?
I suggest that if the individuals and institutions described here had perennially posed these questions
and tried to answer them in a serious, transparent way, they would not have become targets for our study.
Howard Gardner is John H. and Elisabeth A. Hobbs Professor of Cognition and Education at the
Harvard Graduate School of Education. For the last decade, he has codirected the GoodWork Project with
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and William Damon. Gardner has been a Fellow of the American Academy since
1995.
[cl 2005 by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences
1 I thank Jeffrey Epstein for his support of these investigations.
2 I thank Ryan Modri, Paula Marshall, and Deborah Freier for theirinvaluable research efforts.
3 Technically, Hill and Barlow became a corporation in 1992.
LOAD-DATE: December 28, 2005
EFTA00226819
270 of 1456 DOCUMENTS
Copyright 2005 Telegraph Group Limited
All Rights Reserved
The Daily Telegraph (LONDON)
November 29. 2005
SECTION: FEATURES; Science; Pg. 26
LENGTH: 1091 words
HEADLINE: A DIY guide to saving Planet Earth Human survival depends on problem fixing not
avoidance • in particular learning how to cool down our planet, says David Deutsch
BYLINE: David Deutsch
BODY:
Let's start with a couple of ideas that everyone knows. The first - dramatically named Spaceship Earth -
is that our planet is uniquely suited to us and our survival. The universe outside is implacably hostile; if we
mess up our spaceship, we have nowhere else to go. The second is that, despite our traditional self-image,
human beings are not the hub of existence: as Stephen Hawking famously put it, we're just a chemical scum
on the surface of a typical planet in orbit around a typical star on the outskirts of a typical galaxy
Everyone knows these things, yet they are both false. In fact, if you were looking for a pair of truths so
important that it's worth carving them on blocks of stone and reciting them every morning before breakfast,
you could do a lot worse than to carve denials of those two ideas
Are we at a typical place? Most places in the universe are not on a planet, or even in a galaxy. Travel
right outside the galaxy • say, 100,000 light years - and you still haven't reached a typical place. You will
have to go about 1,000 times as far, into deep, intergalactic space, so remote that if the nearest star were to
explode as a supernova, it would be too faint to see. It's also very cold, less than three degrees above
absolute zero. And it's empty: less than one millionth the density of the highest vacuum that scientists can
currently attain.
That is how unlike Earth a typical location is. Yet the two are similar in one remarkable way.
Take a telescope and gaze even further out than where we've just been, at a "quasaf. That was
originally short for "quasi-stellar object", meaning "it looks like a star". But we now know what it really is.
Billions of years ago, and billions of light years away, the centre of some galaxy collapsed towards a super-
massive black hole. Intense magnetic fields directed some of the matter and gravitational energy of that
collapse back out into intense jets, illuminating the surrounding gas with the brightness of a trillion suns.
Billions of years later on the other side of the universe, a certain kind of chemical scum can accurately
describe, model, predict and explain what those jets really are. One physical system, the human brain.
contains an accurate working model of an utterly dissimilar one, a quasar. Not just a superficial image but
an explanatory model embodying the same mathematical relationships and causal structure. That's
knowledge.
And if that weren't amazing enough, the faithfulness of this model is continually increasing. That's the
growth of knowledge. So this chemical scum is different. It models, with ever-increasing precision, the
structure of everything. Our planet, thanks to us, is a hub that contains within itself the structural and causal
essence of the rest of physical reality.
This doesn't require any special physics or miracle. Just matter and energy - and evidence, with which
we chose between rival explanations of what is really out there. In intergalactic space, these three
prerequisites are at their lowest ebb: it's empty, cold and dark.
EFTA00226820
But imagine a solar-system-sized cube of intergalactic space. That cube still contains a million tons of
matter. Which is more than enough, say, to build a fusion-powered space station complete with scientists
who might be collecting evidence to create an open-ended stream of knowledge, just like us - if the right
knowledge were there to start it off.
Therefore we are not in a uniquely hospitable place either. If intergalactic space is capable of creating
an open-ended stream of explanations, then so is almost anywhere. And the limiting factor, both there and
here, is not physical resources but knowledge.
The Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees, has written a book about our vulnerability to scientific
accidents, terrorism using weapons of mass destruction and other dangers: he thinks civilisation has only a
50 per cent chance of surviving this century. But I believe our survival depends not on chance but on
whether we can create the relevant knowledge in time. It always has depended on that, and always will. The
vast majority of all species and all civilisations that have ever existed are now extinct. If we want to be the
exception, our only hope is to harness the one feature that distinguishes our species and our civilisation
from all others, namely our special relationship with the laws of physics: our ability to create new
knowledge.
Take global warming. According to the best available scientific theories, it is too late to avoid a global-
warming disaster. For if it's true that our best option is to suppress carbon-dioxide emissions with the Kyoto
protocol at a cost of hundreds of billions of pounds, then that's already a disaster by any reasonable
measure.
And those measures aren't even purported to solve the problem, merely to postpone it a little. Most
likely it was already too late before anyone even knew about it: in the 1970s, the best available science was
telling us that industrial emissions were about to precipitate a new Ice Age that would kill billions. The
lesson seems so clear that I am baffled that it does not inform public debate: it is that we cannot always
know.
No precautions, and no precautionary principle, can avoid problems that we do not yet foresee.
Therefore, societi needs to shift its stance from problem avoidance to problem fixing. world is abuzz
with plans to cut emissions at all costs. It ought to be buzzing with plans to cool the planet. Or to thrive on
a warmer one. And not at all costs, but efficiently. Some such plans exist: swarms of mirrors in space that
would deflect sunlight away from the Earth; encouraging aquatic organisms to eat more carbon dioxide,
and so on. Such problem-fixing ideas, currently mere fringe research, ought to be at the heart of
humankind's approach to an unknowable and dangerous future. The ability to put things right, not the
impossible prescience needed to stave off all harm in advance, is our only hope of survival.
So take those two stone tablets and carve the two denials I spoke of. On the first, carve: problems are
inevitable. And on the second: problems are soluble.
David Deutsch is a professor of physics at Oxford University. This month he won the 5100,000 "Edge
of Computation" prize, funded by the philanthropist Jeffrey Epstein, for his work on quantum computers.
When he first proposed quantum computation in 1985, it seemed only a theoretical possibility. But the past
decade has seen simple quantum computers that many believe will pave the way to a scientific revolution.
LOAD-DATE: November 29, 2005
EFTA00226821
233 of 1456 DOCUMENTS
Copyright 2006 Associated Press
All Rights Reserved
The Associated Press State & Local Wire
March 17, 2006 Friday 11:52 PM GMT
SECTION: INTERNATIONAL NEWS
LENGTH: 1513 words
IIEADLINE: A package of news briefs from the Caribbean
BYLINE: By The Associated Press
BODY:
CARIBBEAN: Sugar producers in final push to get more EU aid
GEORGETOWN, Guyana (AP) The Caribbean will send another team to several European capitals in
a final push to get more aid for the region's sugar industry after large subsidy cuts were imposed in January•,
an official said Friday.
Representatives from the African, Caribbean and Pacific trade group head to Europe in April,
following a first group that went in early March seeking extra funds to deal with the EU's 36-percent cut in
sugar subsidies.
The EU for years gave its former colonies in the Caribbean. Africa and the Pacific preferential access
to its markets and paid high pnces to encourage development. The World Trade Organization said the
regime was unfair and ordered the bloc to reduce quotas and prices for sugar, as well as for bananas and
cotton.
The EU has earmarked USS47 million ([#x20ac)40 million) in aid for the I8 sugar producing ACP
countries in 2006. Caribbean sugar producers argue the reduced compensation is unfair because EU farmers
who face the same subsidy cuts were to be compensated US$7.9 billion ([#x20ac)6.5 billion).
Caribbean sugar producers include Guyana. Jamaica, Belize, Trinidad and Barbados. St. Kitts closed
its industry after the cuts were first announced and because of rising production costs.
ST. VINCENT: St. Vincent police find bullet that killed PM's press secretary
KINGSTOWN, St. Vincent (AP) St. Vincent police have recovered the single bullet that killed the
prime ministers press secretary and have sent it to another Caribbean island for analysis. an official said
Friday.
The bullet was found imbedded in a seat in Glen Jackson's sport utility vehicle, said Bertram Pompey.
acting police commissioner, who declined to specify where the bullet was sent for testing.
Jackson, whose nude body was discovered Feb. 6 in the SUV near his home in the Cane Garden area
outside the capital, was Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves' press secretary. He played major roles in the
governing Unity Labor Party's successful 2001 and 2005 elections campaigns and hosted a radio talk show
program.
Gonsalves has said two Scotland Yard specialists were expected to join three British investigators
working with local authorities to investigate Jackson's death. Thousands of people turned out Wednesday
for his funeral.
About 118,000 people live in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, an island chain in the southeast
Caribbean Sea.
EFTA00226822
JAMAICA: Jamaican man charged with killing six family members
KINGSTON, Jamaica (AP) A man has been charged with killing six family members, including four
children, whose bodies were found along a beach in western Jamaica last month, police said Friday.
Michael McLean, 38, was charged Thursday with six counts of murder, police said.
McLean, the common-law husband of one of the victims, Terry-Anne Mohammed, 42, has been in
custody since Feb. 28. He turned himself into police because he said he feared for his life after neighbors
accused him of the murders.
Mohammed's burnt corpse was found by police about a half-mile a the mutilated body of her
8-year-old son, Jessie Ogilvie. The bodies of Mohammed's niece, Farika McCool, 27, and two of
her children were also found on the beach with their throats slashed.
One week later, police say McLean led them to a nearby parish where George-McCool's 6-year-old
daughter, Jhaid, was buried in a shallow grave.
The slayings may be drug-related, said Arthur Martin, assistant commissioner of police.
There were a record 1,669 homicides last year in Jamaica, which has recently received the help of
Scotland Yard and London's Metropolitan Police to fight the crime wave.
HAITI: New U.S. ambassador arrives, takes up post
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti (AP) The United States will provide support to Haiti and work with the
country's recently elected government, the new U.S. ambassador said Friday.
Janet A. Sanderson, former ambassador to Algeria, also has served at diplomatic missions in Egypt,
Jordan, Israel, Kuwait and Bangladesh.
"With the election of a new president, new perspectives now present themselves to Haiti," she said
while presenting her credentials to the Haitian government. "Haitians are looking for a better life. And they
are ready though impatient to work ardently to succeed."
President W. Bush nominated the career diplomat to replace James Foley, who left Haiti late
last year.
The United States is one of the main donors to Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.
GUYANA: U.S. diplomat lambasts drug trade, tells police to stop fraternizing with criminals
GEORGETOWN, Guyana (AP) The drug trade is fueling a surge in violent crime and corruption in
Guyana, and police must stop fraternizing with known drug traffickers, a U.S. official said Friday.
The drug trade has grown from a trickle to a multimillion dollar business in the South American
country, and communities are small enough for everyone to know who is involved in it, said Michael
Thomas, the U.S. embassy's deputy chief of mission.
"The public will not trust a police officer they see having lunch with a drug trafficker," said Thomas,
who spoke at the end of an FBI-sponsored community policing training course.
Drug trafficking accounts for an estimated 20 percent of the country's gross domestic product, the U.S.
State Department said in its annual narcotics report released last week. Local media regularly report crimes
that are believed to be related to drugs, the report said.
Weak law enforcement has contributed to the problem, and U.S. federal agents believe anti-drugs
agencies intercept a small amount of the cocaine that transits Guyana, the report said.
PUERTO RICO: U.S. contractor gets 10-year sentence in education fraud case
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) A U.S. contractor was sentenced Friday to 10 years in prison for his
role in a USS4.3 million ((gx20ac)3.6 million) fraud scandal involving Puerto Rico's education department
and its former chief.
EFTA00226823
Norman Olson was convicted of four counts of bribery for paying more than USS73,000
(11/x2Oac)60,400) in political favors as pan of a scheme uncovered four years ago.
Olson, president and owner of National School Services, a Chicago-based business that provides
teacher training and education consultants, said he plans to appeal.
"I respect the decision of this court even though I feel that I am innocent of these charges," Olson said
following his sentencing.
Olson was found guilty of paying bribes to Victor Fajardo, former education secretary from 1994 to
2000, in exchange for contracts with the department between 1999 and 2000.
Fajardo pleaded guilty in 2002 to extorting some USS4.3 million from contractors doing business with
his agency.
U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS: Nobel Prize winning physicists debate universe structure in U.S. Virgin
Islands
CHARLOTTE AMALIE, U.S. Virgin Islands (AP) Twenty of the worlds top physicists, including
three Nobel Prize winners, are meeting in the U.S. Virgin Islands to debate the structure of the universe.
Nobel prize winners Gerardus 't Hooft, David Gross and Frank Wilczek, and experimental and
theoretical physics pioneer Stephen Hawking are among the minds that have converged in the island of St.
Thomas to discuss some of physics most puzzling questions, such as the existence of black holes and
alternate dimensions.
the
"This is a remarkable group, as far as the level of people who are here," said Wilczek, who won
for their explanation of the force that binds
2004 Nobel Prize in physics with Gross and H. David Politzer
particles inside the atomic nucleus.
Jeffrey Epstein, a New York money manager whose J. Epstein Virgin Islands Foundation helped
finance the six-day conference that began Thursday night, said the U.S. Caribbean territory's natural beauty
will help the scientists relax and concentrate.
"You work best with friends. The idea is to take them for a walk on the beach. Take them on a
submarine ride," he said. "I think some really great ideas will come out of this."
CRICKET: Solanki spurs England A to series-leveling win
BRIDGETOWN, Barbados (AP) Captain Vikram Solanki spanked 92 as England A cruised to a series-
leveling 90-run triumph over West Indies A in their fourth one-day cricket international at Windward
Cricket Club on Friday.
The five-match rubber stood at 2-2 with the decider on Sunday at the same venue.
Solanki, the Worcestershire right-hander, cracked nine fours off 121 balls to lead the visitors to a
formidable 269 for nine off 50 oven.
The home team limped to 179-9 off 50 oven in its pursuit. England fast bowler Sajid Mahmood
engineered a top-order slide, claiming three for 33 while offspinner Gareth Batty took 3.26.
Left-hander Ryan Hinds topscored for West Indies with a labored 32 off 70 balls.
England A, batting first after winning the toss, stumbled early on as West Indies' new ball pair of
Andrew Richardson and Tino Best reduced it to 15-2 in the fifth over.
But Solanki and Jamie Dalrymple added 132 for the third wicket to till the balance back to their side.
Dalrymple cracked four fours and three sixes in 62 off 75 balls before he was stumped trying to hit out
at offspinner Omani Banks.
LOAD-DATE: March 18, 2006
EFTA00226824
461 of 1456 DOCUMENTS
Copyright 2004 SOFTLINE INFORMATION, INC.
Ethnic NewsWatch
Forward
April 23, 2004
SECTION: Vol. CVII: No. 31; Pg. 6
SLI.ACC-NO: 0604FWDM 104 000012
LENGTH: 936 words
HEADLINE: Fund Helps Persecuted Scholars Reach Safe Havens
BYLINE: Popper. Nathaniel
BODY:
In a seemingly different life, Ahmed Subhy Mansour was a scholar at
Cairo's venerated Al-Azhar University. He studied the history of dictatorship
in Islam and the place of death and paradise in the Koran. But some aspect of
his research did not go over well with the authorities, and in 1987 he was
fired from his position and jailed for two months.
Since then he has searched for a place to continue his work and his life,
particularly after a number of newspapers accused hint of upholding Zionism, a
crime punishable by death in Egypt. After 15 years of wandering, last year he
finally found a new home -- as a research fellow at Harvard University.
The match was made through the Scholar Rescue Fund, started two years ago
by the Institute of International Education. Since it was created, the rescue
fund has enabled Mansour and 44 other scholars to escape persecution in their
home countries, and -- just as importantly for many of them -- to continue
their scholarly work with a position at an American university. At Harvard, for
example. Mansour has pushed ahead with the creation of a center for studying
and reforming the Wahabi influence on Islamic institutions in America.
The rescue fund is not the first such project run by the International
Institute of Education, which also sponsors the Fulbright scholarship program.
During the 1930s and 1940s. the institute's Emergency Committee in Aid of
Displaced Foreign Scholars helped bring more than 330 scholars, most of them
Jewish, from Nazi Germany to the United States, including such luminaries as
philosopher Martin Buber, physicist Enrico Fermi and novelist Thomas Mann.
Descendents of several of those earlier scholars, along with families of
other Jewish refugees, gathered recently at the Park Avenue apartment of Jewish
philanthropist Patti Kenner to raise money to help revive the rescue program.
After cocktails, the crowd of about 100 guests retired to Kennees warm living
room to sit on plush couches among pastoral landscape paintings. Four recently
rescued scholars had been brought in for the evening, and two of them told
their respective tales of persecution in Iran and Pakistan, which seemed much
more than a world away from the safety of the Upper East Side.
"I've had such an easy life," Kenner said after hearing the scholars
speak, with a tone of gratitude that was representative of her guests. "I've
never experienced anything difficult. We're all so lucky."
EFTA00226825
The fund is being revived at a time when many observers are talking about
global antisemitism reaching its highest levels since the 1930s, when the last
rescue program was in operation. In the program's =rent incarnation, though,
none of the 45 scholars who have been rescued are Jewish.
The one scholar so far whose work was connected to the Jewish community
was a Palestinian scholar, who felt threatened by both Israeli and Palestinian
officials for his work analyzing the policy of political assassinations.
"He was advocating less violence on both sides, and it made him unpopular
with a lot of people." according to Robert Quinn, director of the Scholar
Rescue Fund.
The rescue fund has little in the way of guaranteed funds to ensure its
survival. The goal of the night was to raise I million for an endowed chair in
the name of Ruth Gruber, a 93-year old photojournalist who was on hand to tell
of her trip to Europe in 1944, when she helped rescue 1.000 Jewish refugees.
The Gruber chair is part of a larger effort to create a 10 million
endowment that is being lefisefugee-turned-millionaire Henry 'mad, along
with fellow businessmen Soros, Thomas Russo and Jeffrey Epstein.
While the roster of scholars who have been helped suggests that the
Jewish funding for the program does not come out of a narrow ethnic
self-interest, the scars of Jewish history were evident beneath the surface of
the appeals for donations at Kenner's apartment.
The guest speaker for the night was Hanna Holborn Gray, who came over
with her parents through the 1930s rescue program and went on to become the
first female president of the University of Chicago.
"In the 1930s, the German academic world was seen as a model, and one saw
how quickly that could vanish," Gray recalled.
Almost all of the 45 scholars funded in the last two years have hailed
from either African or Muslim-majority countries. Many of them -- including
Mansour and an Iranian scientist who spoke at Kenner's home -- have been
punished for the pro-Western and pro-Israel slant in their work
The hind's directors, however, have been astonished at the diversity of
the 450 scholars from 84 countries who have applied so far. Many of the
applicants come from far beyond the traditional disciplines of the humanities
in which dissidents might be expected to work.
The threat of bodily harm was a constant for most of the applicants, and
Jarecki ominously remembered that many of the more than 5000 applicants who
were turned down by the institute during the 1930s perished a few years later.
A scholar from the Ivory Coast at Kenner's gathering described his own
situation -- being forced to hide in the countryside after teaching political
science courses that were critical of the government as a re-emergence of
darker periods from the past.
"This is the same old story," the African scholar said. "It is the
history of the universe. The history of power corrupting people."
Article copyright Forward Newspaper, L.L.C.
JOURNAL-CODE: FW
LOAD-DATE: September 30, 2004
EFTA00226826
math-•counting 10 66.6
attitude--positive 9 60.0
speech act 9 60.0
space--size 8 53.3
space--grasping 7 46.6
sound--speech 7 46.6
logic-•universal 7 46.6
quantification
space--housing 6 40.0
Table 2 Diverse schemes for story understanding
domains
Domain Representation/Reasoning
Schemes
space frame, generalized cylinder model,
interval logic, occupancy grid
time, action effects causal model, event calculus,
situation calculus, transframe
reactivity neural net, production system,
subsumption architecture
schemas, scripts finite automaton, frame, frame-
Aray, generalized Petri net
subgoaling first-order logic, K-line, marker
passing, semantic net
emotions, attitudes microneme. neural net, temporal
modal logic
** Trademark or registered trademark of Cycorp, Inc.
Cited references and notes
(1.) M. Minsky, The Emotion Machine, Pantheon. New York (forthcoming). Several chapters are on
line at http://web.media.mit.eduf minsky.
(2.) The use of reading comprehension tests as a metric for evaluating story understanding systems
was previously proposed in L. Hirschman, M. Light, E. Brcck, and J. Burger, "Deep Read: A Reading
Comprehension System," Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational
Linguistics, College Park, MD, June 1999, Association for Computational Linguistics (1999).
(3.)1. McCarthy, "Programs with Common Sense," Proceedings of the Symposium on Mechanisation
of Thought Processes, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London (1958), pp. 77-84.
EFTA00226827
(4.) J. McCarthy, "From Here to Human-Level Intelligence," Proceedings of the Fifth International
Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'96), Cambridge, MA,
November 1996, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA (1996), pp. 640-646.
(5.) L. Morgenstern, "A Formal Theory of Multiple Agent Non-monotonic Reasoning," Proceedings
of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA (1990), pp. 538-
544.
(6.) E. M, "The Naive Physics Perplex," Al Magazine 19, No. 4, 51-79 (1998).
(7.) D. Lenat, "Cyc: A Large-Scale Investment in Knowledge Infrastructure," Communications of the
ACM 38, No. 11, 32.38 (1995).
(8.) More details can be found in E. T. Mueller, "Story Understanding," to appear in Encyclopedia of
Cognitive Science, Nature Publishing Group, London (2002).
(9.) E. Charniak, Toward a Model of Children's Story Comprehension, Technical Report AITR-266,
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (1972).
(10.) R. C. Schank and R. P. Abelson, Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding, L. Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ (1977).
(II.) R. E. Cullingford, Script Application: Computer Understanding of Newspaper Stories, Technical
Report YALE/DCS/tr116, Computer Science Department, Yale University, New Haven, CT (1978).
(12.) R. Wilensky, Understanding Goal-Based Stories, Technical Report YALEIDCSAr140, Computer
Science Department, Yale University, New Haven, CT (1978).
(13.) M.G. Dyer, In-Depth Understanding, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1983).
(14.) A. Ram, Question-Driven Understanding: An Integrated Theory of Story Understanding,
Memory, and Learning, Technical Report YALE/DCSitr710, Computer Science Department, Yale
University, New Haven, CT (1989).
(15.) C. Dolan, Tensor Manipulation Networks: Connectionist and Symbolic Approaches to
Comprehension, Learning, and Planning, Technical Report 890030, Computer Science Department,
University of California, Los Angeles, CA (1989).
(16.) E.T. Mueller, Natural Language Processing with ThoughtTreasure, Signiform, New York
(1998), full text of book available on line at http://wvAv.signiform.comitt/booW.
(17.) L. G. Alexander, Longman English Grammar, Longman, London (1988).
(18.) E. M, Representations of Commonsense Knowledge, Morgan Kauffman, San Mateo, CA
(1990).
(19.) S. E. Fahlman, NEIL: A System for Repretenting and Using Real-World Knowledge, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA (1979).
(20.) M. Shanahan, Solving the Frame Problem, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1997).
(21.) D.A. Randell, Z. Cui, and A. G. Cohn, "A Spatial Logic Based on Regions and Connection,"
Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Morgan
Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA (1992), pp. 165.176.
(22.) B. Kuipers, "The Spatial Semantic Hierarchy," Artificial Intelligence 119, 191-233 (2000).
(23.) P. Singh, "The Public Acquisition of Commonsense Knowledge," Proceedings of the AAAI
Spring Symposium on Acquiring (and Using) Linguistic (and World) Knowledge for Information Access,
Palo Alto, CA, March 2002, American Association for Artificial Intelligence (2002).
(24.) M. Minsky, The Society of Mind, Simon & Schuster, New York (1985).
(25.) A. Sloman, "Beyond Shallow Models of Emotion," Cognitive Processing I, No. 1 (2001).
EFTA00226828
•I •
The reactive and deliberative layers differ in that the deliberative layer evolved much later and
requires a far more sophisticated long-term memory, as well as symbolic reasoning capabilities using a
short-term reusable memory. The meta-management layer may have evolved at a still later time and
requires explicit use of concepts referring to states of an information processing architecture. The earliest
organisms, such as most existing organisms. were totally reactive. Deliberative and meta-management
layers evolved later. Adult humans appear to have all three types of processing, which is probably rare
among other animals.
One of the key features that gives H-Cogaff its generality is the fact that different components, instead
of forming parts of simple pipelines, can concurrently send information of various kinds to arbitrarily many
other components, allowing a wide varlet' of feedback mechanisms and triggering mechanisms.
In story understanding, the meta-management level may control the deliberative level in a number of
ways.
• If the deliberative level is spending too much time considering certain details and those details are
not crucial to the story, the meta-management level will make the deliberative level stop.
• If the deliberative level is spending too much time on a task that does not relate to the goal of
reading the story, the meta-management level will make the deliberative level stop.
• If the deliberative level becomes confused, the meta-management level will tell it to go back and
reread. The deliberative level may have ruled out a possibility earlier that needs to be reconsidered in light
of new information.
Minsky further elaborates the H-Cogaff architecture into the six-level architecture called "Model Six"
shown in Figure 2. (I) At its bottom lies a "zoo of instinctive subanimals" built upon ancient, ancestral
systems that still maintain our bodies and brains. These include systems for feeding, breathing, heating,
sleeping, and other systems that keep us alive. The deliberative and reflective levels are engaged to solve
more difficult kinds of problems. The self-reflective level is engaged when the problems involve our
relationships with our past and future selves. At the top lies machinery that we acquire from our societies.
such as suppressors and censors, imprimers and values, and our various kinds of self-ideals.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED)
Multiple reasoning and representation schemes and levels. An architecture of diversity would embed
representations from natural language to micronemes (27,1) as depicted in Figure 3. The representations
depicted include frames, transframes, frame-arrays, K-lines, and micronemes. A frame is a representation
based on a set of slots to which other structures can be attached. (28) Each slot is connected to a default
assumption that is easily displaced by more specific information. A transfrarne is a particular type of frame
representing the causal trajectory between the initial and resulting states representing a situation that a legal
action was performed on. A frame-array is a collection of frames that share the same slots, making it easy
to change perspective with respect to physical viewpoint or other mental realms. A knowledge-line or K-
line is a wirelike structure that attaches itself to whichever resources are active in solving a problem. The
K-line simplifies activation of those same resources when solving a similar problem in the future.
Micronemes arc low-level features for representing the many cognitive shades and hues of a context. In
Figure 3, new evolved structures are made from older lower-level ones, and the tower shown might be a
plausible Darwinian brain-development scheme.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Table 2 shows just a few of the diverse representation and reasoning schemes useful for domains of
story understanding.
We propose to address the commonsense reasoning problem starting with stories for very young
readers. However, to demonstrate all of the different ways we think when understanding a story. and what
we would eventually expect a commonsense story understanding system to be able to handle, consider the
following adult story (the discussion here is condensed from Reference I).
Joan heard a ring and picked up the phone. Charles was answering her
question about how to use a certain technique. He suggested she read a
EFTA00226829
certain book, which he would soon bring to her since he had planned to be
in her neighborhood. Joan thanked him and ended the call. Soon Charles
arrived and gave her the book.
Following are a few of the understandings an adult reader would have after hearing the story.
• Joan heard a ring. She recognizes it as a telephone bell and feels the need to respond quickly. She
knows how to use the telephone.
• She picked up the phone. She is subsequently holding the phone to her car.
• Charles was answering her question. Charles and Joan are not in the same room. Charles also knows
how to use the telephone.
• He suggested she read a certain book. Joan probably now feels some relief, since she knows where
to find the knowledge she needs.
• He had planned to be in her neighborhood. Joan will not be surprised when he arrives, because she
will remember that he said he would come.
• Ile gave her the book. Will she have to give it back? The story does not tell us that.
These conclusions are based on reasoning and representations in many realms, as follow.
The physical realm. In this realm, give might mean the motion of the book through space. This could
be represented as a transframe that starts with Charles's hand holding the book and ends with Joan's hand
carrying it. One must know a lot about physical things and how they behave in space and time.
The social realm. In this realm, give may signify social acts that can alter the relationships of the
actors. What were Charles's motives or his attitudes? Clearly, he was not returning a loan. Was he hoping to
ingratiate himself? Or was he just being generous? How will Joan feel about Charles after he gives her the
book? One must know a lot about what people arc, and a certain amount about how people work.
The dominion realm. Given Charles gave Joan the book, one infers not only that Joan is holding the
book, but also that, at least for a time, she possesses the right to use it.
The conversational realm. How do conversations work? Consider how many elaborate skills are
involved in a typical verbal exchange. One has to keep track of what is being discussed, what one has
previously told the listener, and what the listener knows. Thus conversations are partly based on knowledge
of how human memories work and what is commonly known in one's culture. One has to make sure the
listener has understood what was said and why it was said. One certainly needs to know how to speak and
to understand some of what one may hear.
The procedural realm. How does one make a telephone call? One must first find a phone and dial a
number. Then once the connection has been established, one says hello, talks a bit, and eventually leads
into why one called. At the end, one says goodbye and hangs up the phone. Generally, such scripts have
certain steps that are specified, while other steps provide for more room to improvise.
The sensory and motor realms. Each of the above steps raises questions. For example, it takes only
one second or so for one's arm to reach out in order to pick up the phone. How can one do that so quickly?
The kinesthetic, tactile, and haptic realms. Using a telephone or any other physical object engages a
great base of body-related knowledge and skills. One anticipates how the phone will feel against one's ear
or sandwiched between shoulder and cheek. One expects certain haptic sensations such as the feel of the
phone's weight. One strengthens one's grip when the phone starts to slip.
The temporal realms. People have elaborate models of time where events are located in futures and
pasts that are represented in relation to other times and events or in anecdotal stories.
The economic realm. People know and reason about the costs incurred by each action or transaction in
terms of money, energy, space, or time.
EFTA00226830
The reflective realm. People know about themselves. One knows to some degree what one can or
cannot do, what kinds of problems one can solve, how one's thinking and memory works, and what sorts of
things one is able to learn.
.Along with these positive kinds of knowledge, one also has negative knowledge about what might go
wrong when using a phone. One must know what to do if one gets a wrong number, if there is no answer,
or if a modem or intercept recording is reached.
Example system with architecture of diversity. Thus far, the Sloman and Minsky architectures arc
theoretical constructs and have not yet been implemented. However, there are examples of working
systems that capture the spirit of such architectures. One such example is the NI system depicted in Figure
4. (29) M integrates multiple reasoning processes and representations to serve as an assistant to a user
collaborating with other workers within a virtual meeting room that hosts multimedia desktop
conferencing. NI serves to recognize and classify the actions performed by the participants as well as the
objects upon which the actions arc applied; example actions and objects are brainstorming on a whiteboard,
coauthoring a document, and creating and working with other artifacts.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
Next steps
The two recent meetings held in March 2002 at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center and in
April 2002 on St. Thomas indicate that there is a dedicated group of recognized researchers interested in
working together on a project to develop a solution to commonsense reasoning. We are now planning to
undertake some of the next steps in a plan for such a project. The inspiration for this work comes from
Minsky's past and forthcoming work. We close with his thoughts on how such a project might be realized,
as follows.
Our goal is to aim toward a critical "change of phase" that will come when we cross a threshold at
which our systems know how to improve themselves. This is something that all young children can do, but
we do not know enough about how they do it; so one goal of the project must be to develop better models
of how normal people think.
We will start by trying to implement some of the architectures proposed over the past decade. There
already exist many useful schemes for representing and using knowledge mostly of a factual nature for use
on what we call the deliberative level. However, there has not been enough work on the higher reflective
and self-reflective levels that humans use, as they learn to improve their thinking itself. Any such system,
we claim, will need additional kinds of meta-resources, which will include systems that manage, criticize,
and modify the already operating parts of the structure.
In the field of AI we already have many resources related to this, for example, neural networks, formal
logic, relational databases, genetic programs, statistical methods, and of course the heuristic search,
planning, and case-based reasoning schemes of earlier years. However, our goal is not to discuss which
method is best. Instead we will try to develop a plan of how to incorporate into one system the virtues of
many different approaches. Of course, each such scheme has deficiencies and our hope is that our system
can escape from these by using higher-level, more reflective schemes that understand what each of those
other schemes can do and in what context they are most effective.
Table I Early reader corpus: top 10 domains of common
sense
Domain Number Percentage
of Stories of Stories
space--location 14 93.3
space--motion It 733
EFTA00226831
606 of 1456 DOCUMENTS
Copyright 2002 Gale Group, Inc.
ASAP
Copyright 2002 All Rights Reserved.
IBM Systems Journal
September 1, 2002
SECTION: No. 3, Vol. 41; Pg. 530; ISSN: 0018-8670
IAC-ACC-NO: 91469723
LENGTH: 6160 words
HEADLINE: An architecture of diversity for commonsense reasoning; Technical forum.
BYLINE: McCarthy, J.; Minsky, M.; Sloman, A.; Gong, L.; Lau, T.; Morgenstern, L.; Mueller, E.T.;
Riecken, D.; Singh, M.; Singh, P.
BODY:
Although computers excel at certain bounded tasks that are difficult for humans, such as solving
integrals, they have difficulty performing commonsense tasks that are easy for humans, such as
understanding stories. In this Technical Forum contribution, we discuss commonsense reasoning and what
makes it difficult for computers. We contend that commonsense reasoning is too hard a problem to solve
using any single artificial intelligence technique. We propose a multilevel architecture consisting of diverse
reasoning and representation techniques that collaborate and reflect in order to allow the best techniques to
be used for the many situations that arise in commonsense reasoning. We present story understanding--
specifically, understanding and answering questions about progressively harder children's texts--as a task
for evaluating and scaling up a commonsense reasoning system.
In the fall of 2001, a proposal was developed by Marvin Minsky, Erik Mueller, Doug Riecken, Push
Singh, Aaron Sloman, and Oliver Steele for a project to develop a human-level commonsense reasoning
system. The basic proposal was (1) to develop certain ideas of Minsky and Sloman about a multilevel
cognitive architecture, and (2) to develop the system in a way that would exploit many existing artificial
intelligence techniques for commonsense reasoning and knowledge representation, such as case-based
reasoning, logic, neural nets, genetic algorithms, and heuristic search.
We proposed to organize a meeting at which we would bring together many of the major established
researchers in the area of commonsense knowledge and reasoning. Riecken organized a preliminary
meeting at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center in March 2002, at which many IBM researchers
were invited to discuss and react to this general subject as well as to present their own ideas. Afterwards,
the specific proposal was discussed in more detail by specialists in commonsense knowledge and reasoning
at a meeting held on St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, in April 2002, and hosted by Jeffrey Epstein. This
Technical Forum contribution focuses on the preliminary meeting, but also contains some material
presented at the April meeting, including some material from Minsky's forthcoming book The Emotion
Machine. (I)
At the IBM meeting, a broad consensus was reached on three main points. First, there was agreement
that the community should strive toward solving a nontrivial problem that would require a level of
knowledge, and a capability of reasoning with that knowledge, beyond what is demonstrated by current
systems. The problem put forward was that of story understanding. An important advantage of the story
understanding task is that standardized tests are available to evaluate students on their reading
comprehension skills. Moreover, these tests require the use of commonsense reasoning skills. It is thus
possible to evaluate the performance of any story understanding system against that of students at different
reading levels. (2)
EFTA00226832
Second, there was consensus that the story understanding task provides a strong testbed for evaluating
a commonsense reasoning system. Not only dots such a system need several different forms of reasoning,
representation, and learning, but it also needs them to work in conjunction with each other. In addition, the
task highlights the importance of using and reasoning with common sense. This is illustrated by a sentence
from a story about a child and her grandfather: "He gently takes my elbow as we walk so that I can help
show him the path." Knowledge of the fact that the grandfather is blind, and the commonsense facts that
people ordinarily use their sight to find paths and that blind people are unable to see, enable the inference
that the child is guiding the grandfather and not merely pointing out the path, another frequent sense of the
word "show." Absence of this commonsense knowledge could lead to the incorrect interpretation of the
word "show."
Third, there was agreement on the need to develop a testbed architecture for representation and
reasoning that allows different systems and representations to work with each other. Researchers often try
to solve a problem using just one form of representation and reasoning. But such an approach does not
work well for sufficiently complex problems such as story understanding. In contrast, enabling various
techniques to collaborate will allow the best techniques to be used for a given situation. Any such
architecture must provide metalevel control and knowledge that will enable different techniques to
determine whether or not they are suited for a given task, to decide what other techniques may be better for
the task, and to communicate information and share partial results with each other.
What makes commonsense reasoning difficult
Commonsense reasoning--the sort of reasoning we would expect a child to do easily--is difficult for
computers to do. Certainly, the relative paucity of results in this field does not reflect the considerable
effort that has been expended, starting with McCarthy's paper "Programs with Common Sense." (3)
Nevertheless, the problem remains unsolved. What is it about commonsense reasoning that makes it
difficult to automate? Various explanations have been suggested, some of which we discuss in this section.
McCanhys commonsense informatic situation. The knowledge needed to solve a commonsense
reasoning problem is typically much more extensive and general than the knowledge needed to solve
difficult problems. McCarthy points out that the knowledge needed to solve well-formulated problems in
fields such as physics or mathematics is bounded. (4) In contrast, there are no a priori limitations to the
facts that are needed to solve commonsense problems: the given knowledge may be incomplete; one may
have to use approximate concepts and approximate theories; one will generally have to use non-monotonic
reasoning to reach conclusions; and one will need some ability to reflect upon one's own reasoning
processes. Morgenstern provides an example of the commonsense informatic situation in the problem of
two friends arranging to meet for dinner at a restaurant. (5)
Explicit vs implicit knowledge. Commonsense knowledge is often implicit. whereas the knowledge
needed to solve well-formulated difficult problems is often explicit. For example, the knowledge needed to
solve integrals can be found in explicit form in a standard calculus textbook. However, the knowledge
needed to arrange a dinner meeting exists in vague, implicit form. Implicit knowledge must first be made
explicit, which is a time-consuming task requiring a serious knowledge engineering effort.
Domain knowledge. A huge amount of knowledge is needed to do even simple forms of
commonsense reasoning. For example, to figure out what sorts of objects will work as stakes in a garden--a
reasoning task that seemingly demands no effort--requires knowledge of plant materials, how plants grow,
flexibility and hardness, shapes of plants, soil texture, properties of wind, spatial reasoning, and temporal
reasoning. (6) Although there have been a number of efforts to capture large amounts of world knowledge,
most notably the Cyc '• project, (7) we are not at this point aware of any knowledge base that contains the
information necessary to reason about stakes in a garden or about fumbling for an object in one's pocket.
This Technical Forum piece does not present a solution to these difficulties. Rather, we are attempting
to see how far we can progress on an important commonsense reasoning problem even in the presence of
such difficulties.
Story understanding as a vehicle for studying commonsense reasoning
Story understanding requires addressing the commonsense informatic situation. A story understanding
system should be able to read and understand a story, and demonstrate its understanding by (1) answering
EFTA00226833
questions about the story, (2) producing paraphrases and summaries of the story, and (3) integrating the
information the story contains into a database. Further, useful results from this work will have a direct
impact on many business products and services.
A brief history of story understanding systems. Starting in the 1960s, (8) researchers have studied
story• understanding and have built systems that can read and answer questions about simple stories. An
early system built by Chamiak (9) used a single mechanism, test-action demons, for making inferences in
understanding. In the 1970s, Schank and Abelson (10) proposed scripts, plans, and goals as knowledge
structures for understanding. These knowledge structures were incorporated into the SAM (I I and PAM
(12) story understanding systems.
In the 1980s. knowledge structures for emotions, story themes, and spatial/temporal maps were
incorporated into BORIS. (13) AQUA (14) used case-based reasoning to retrieve and apply explanation
patterns in order to answer questions raised by anomalies encountered while reading a story. CRAM (15)
used a connectionist approach to story understanding.
Recent story understanding systems have adopted the approach of understanding a story by building
and maintaining a simulation that models the mental and physical states and events described in the story,
as demonstrated in ThoughtTreasure. (16) The advantage of this approach is that it is easy to answer
questions about the story simply by examining the contents of the simulation.
Cntical problems for story understanding systems. The story understanding systems built so far work
only on the particular stories they are designed to handle. For example, SAM (I I) handles five stories,
BORIS (13) three, AQUA (14) five, and ThoughtTreasure (16) three. What prevents story understanding
systems from scaling up to hundreds of previously unseen stories?
We contend that story understanding research is blocked on three critical problems: (1) complexity of
the structure of natural language, (2) necessity for large commonsense knowledge bases, and (3)
combinatorial explosion in the understanding process.
Complexity of the structure of natural language. Rare is the simple subject-verb-object sentence that
maps into a simple proposition. More typically, text contains numerous language phenomena such as
adverbials, compound nouns, direct and indirect speech, ellipsis, genitive constructions, and relative
clauses. (17) Present-day syntactic and semantic parsers have trouble producing accurate parses of typical
story sentences.
Necessity for large commonsense knowledge bases. Understanding even simple stories requires
knowing a huge number of facts. For example, understanding the first paragraph of The Cat in the Hat
requires knowing about children's play, how children can be affected by winter weather their relationship
to their parents, and notions of discipline, boredom, surprise, and risk. Similarly, as (IS) points out,
the first paragraph of The Tale of Benjamin Bunny assumes familiarity with concepts o quantity, space,
time, physics, goals, plans, needs, and communication.
Combinatorial explosion in the understanding process. Multiple possible interpretations arise at all
levels of language. Words are ambiguous as to part of speech and word sense. Sentences are syntactically
ambiguous. There are several possible explanations for any action of a story character. several possible
explanations for those explanations, and so on. We get a combinatorial explosion: the understanding
process must search an extremely large space of possibilities.
Approaches to critical problems in story understanding. that can be done? We propose a three-
pronged approach. First, to deal with the complexity of the structure of natural language, we make a major
cut in complexity by going back to books for early readers. Second, to deal with the necessity for large
commonsense knowledge bases, we propose to identify the domains most frequently used in a restricted set
of stories and to address these first. Last, to deal with the combinatorial explosion in the understanding
process, we propose a new paradigm for commonsense reasoning: an architecture of diversity.
Early readers. Early reader texts arc designed for preschool and kindergarten students. These texts
employ a small or controlled vocabulary, short sentences, and limited language constructions. Working
with early reader texts will enable us to effectively solve the language front-end problem using existing
research techniques.
EFTA00226834
Text annotation for domain identification. We cannot hope to deal with the commonsense informatic
situation head-on. The point of icCarthy's 1996 paper (4) 's that any domain can be relevant to a particular
problem: when reading a story, any area of knowledge ma be necessary for comprehension. This is less
true for stories designed for very young readers: although, as our examples above show, a great many
concepts and domains arc still needed for full comprehension even of early reader texts. Nevertheless, we
believe we can make progress by choosing to address those domains that most frequently turn up in
children's stories. Such an approach would, we hope, make the problem tractable.
We thus propose the following corpus-based approach. We start with a corpus of stories at the
preschool and kindergarten levels and divide the corpus into a development set and a test set. We manually
annotate each story in the development set with an informal inventory of what domains of commonsense
knowledge and reasoning must be addressed in order to understand the story. We sort the domains by their
frequency and attempt to develop methods to understand the domains that occur most frequently. We start
with the most frequent domain, proceeding to the next most frequent domain, and so forth. Development
proceeds on the development set, and a final evaluation of the generality of the system is conducted on the
previously unseen test set. Wc iterate this process on successively higher reading levels, progressing to
stories designed for Grades I, 2, and 3. This approach, based on an incremental series of experiments, will
enable a significant research focus at each step on an architecture of diversity.
To demonstrate how this approach would work, we formed a corpus of 15 early reader stories and
annotated them as to the domains of common sense necessary for understanding them. The vocabulary size
was 561 words. The top 10 domains of common sense arc shown in Table I. This provides us with a path
for research in understanding the story corpus: focus on handling the most frequently appearing domains of
common sense.
Dealing with these concepts is by no means trivial. We plan to leverage the extensive work that has
been done in these areas. Such work includes: ThoughtTrcasure, (16) NETL2, (19) Cyc, (7) Shanahan's
formalization of time, (20) the RCC formalization of space, (21) and Kuipers's Spatial Semantic Hierarchy.
(22) We will also employ rapid knowledge formation techniques such as Open Mind. (23)
An architecture of diversity
Many attempts to build intelligent computers have hunted for a single mechanism (such as universal
sub-goaling, propagation rules, logical inference, probabilistic reasoning) or representation (such as
production rules, connectionist networks, logical formulas, causal networks) that would serve as a basis for
general intelligence. Why have these approaches so far failed to achieve human-level common sense?
We believe that the problem is too large to solve using any single approach. Human versatility must
emerge from a large-scale architecture of diversity in which each of several different reasoning
mechanisms and representations can help overcome the deficiencies of the other ones. (24,1) Our
hypothesis is that such an architecture can overcome the combinatorial explosion problem in story
understanding.
Multilevel cognitive architecture. We conjecture that the information processing architecture of a
human is something like the three-level architecture developed by Sloman in the Cognition and Affect
project (25) (Ii-Cogaff), shown in Figure 1. This conjecture is based on evidence of many kinds from
several disciplines, and constraints on evolvabilitl, implementability in neural mechanisms, and
functionality. (26)
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED)
Reactive processes are those in which internal or external states detected by sensors immediately
trigger internal or external responses. Deliberative processes are those in which alternative possibilities for
action can be considered, categorized, evaluated, and selected or rejected. More generally a deliberative
mechanism may be capable of counterfactual reasoning about the past and present and hypothetical
reasoning about the future. The depth, precision, and validity of such reasoning can vary. Meta-
management processes add the ability to monitor, evaluate, and to some extent control processes occurring
within the system in much the same way as the whole system observes and acts on the environment. The
three layers operate concurrently and do not form a simple dominance hierarchy. Arrows represent flow of
information and control, and boundaries need not be sharp in all implementations.
EFTA00226835
543 of 1456 DOCUMENTS
Copyright 2003 The Financial Times Limited
Financial Times (London,England)
August 20, 2003 Wednesday
London Edition I
SECTION: BACK PAGE - FIRST SECTION; Pg. 18
LENGTH: 7'48 words
HEADLINE.: Wall Street spearheads push to secure academic freedom: A scheme that began in the 1930s,
and helped physicist Felix Bloch and writer Thomas Mann, seeks a Dollars 10m revival. Gary Silverman
reports
BYLLNE: By GARY SILVERMAN
BODY:
About a year and a half ago, a small circle of wealthy investors collected Dollars 2m (Pounds I.2m) to
conduct a novel experiment on the extent of global academic freedom.
The group, which included Soros, Henry Jarecki and Jeffrey Epstein established a fund to
help scholars escape threats in their ome countries and find teaching work elsewhere. The donors made
their offer in the spirit of the movie, Field of Dreams, which held that "if you build it, they will come'. Still,
they were stunned by the response.
About 300 academics from 65 countries sought help from the Scholar Rescue Fund, which is being
administered by the non-profit Institute of International Education.
Many of the threats to scholars came from likely suspects - African warlords, Colombian drug
traffickers, terrorists and religious fundamentalists. But the organisers were also struck by the heartbreaking
singularity of so many of the cases.
A marine biologist in a former republic of the Soviet Union angered government officials by studying
local shellfish populations. An African academic was threatened after discovering that funds had been
stolen from a university library. One western European government even sought help for a local scholar
who was threatened by a separatist movement.
"The overwhelming majority of cases involve people who haven't taken sides." said Allan Goodman,
IIE president and chief executive.
"They just happened to be scholars who are teaching in the wrong field, or they happened to be from
the wrong ethnic group or. in one case, they have the same surname as the leader of a faction and they have
been targeted."
The extent of the problem led the organisers to a sad conclusion - their work needed to take a more
permanent form.
They are now trying to raise a Dollars I Om endowment for the Scholar Rescue Fund. They may also
start an index of academic freedom that would spotlight abuses in particular countries.
"The impact and need has been greater than we expected," says Mr Soros, comparing the effort to his
work on behalf of central and eastern European dissidents in the 1980s.
So far, the fund has helped 30 scholars from 19 countries escape persecution and find work at
institutions ranging from Princeton University to the Geological Survey of Norway. The rescues
themselves can be dangerous and the IIE often turns to human rights groups for logistical help.
EFTA00226836
The fund arranges for the scholars to get teaching positions, providing annual stipends ofup to Dollars
20,000 to smooth the transition.
The IIE's role in helping intellectuals is not a new role as it started in the 1930s and was led by Edward
R. Murrow, an IIE assistant director and later a legendary CBS reporter. Among those it helped were Felix
Bloch, the physicist, theologians Martin Buber and Paul
Tillich, Thomas Mann. the novelist, and philosopher Herbert Marcuse.
The latest effort to rescue scholars bears the imprint of Wall Street. Tom Russo, a Lehman Brothers
,vice-chairman and an LIE trustee, has been a prime mover in the project. He helped recruit the donors and
define the rationale for the rescue work. For Mr Russo, academic freedom is like market transparency - a
"source of light" that keeps society functioning smoothly.
Deciding on which requests should receive help has been a job worthy of Solomon. The fund has heard
from scholars who live in dangerous places but face no particular threat as individuals - a requirement for
receiving help. Mr Goodman says this is often the case in places such as Israel's occupied territories,
although the LIE has made one rescue there.
Dr Jarecki, a psychiatrist who made a fortune in bullion dealing and other ventures, said the fund is
also trying hard to avoid contributing to a "brain drain" of academic talent in developing countries. Many of
the applicants face threats to their security, but others simply want to move for economic reasons.
However, the organisers say they are trying to resist the temptation of being too cautious in their work.
He says he frequently brings up the example of a 1938 conference in Evian, France, that was held to
discuss the resettlement of German and Austrian Jews. The Dominican Republic agreed to accept between
50,000 and 100,000 Jews. But by the time the "proper" arrangements were made, a world war was raging
and it was too late to do much good.
In this case, Dr Jarecki says, the fund will work out how best to achieve its aims as it goes along. But.
he adds: "I thought we should start by doing it."
LOAD-DATE: August 19, 2003
EFTA00226837
Page 2
581 of 1456 DOCUMENTS
Copyright 2003 Associated Press
All Rights Reserved
The Associated Press State & Local Wire
February 7, 2003, Friday, BC cycle
SECTION: State and Regional
LENGTH: 200 words
HEADLINE: Financier pledges S30 million to support Harvard researcher
DATELINE: CA4BRIDGE, Mass.
BODY:
Reclusive financier Jeffrey Epstein has pledged up to S30 million to Harvard University to support a
newly recruited professor's research in the field of mathematical biology.
A spokeswoman for Harvard president H. Summers confirmed Friday that Epstein's
contribution will support the research of Martin A. owak, who is scheduled to join the Harvard faculty on
July 1.
Epstein, who reportedly manages billions of dollars from his private island in the Caribbean, already
made a donation and plans to eventually establish a 530 million endowment to support Nowak's research,
spokeswoman Lucie McNeil said. She did not specify how much he has already given.
Nowak, 36. currently a professor at Princeton's Institute of Advanced Study, uses advanced
mathematics to model human behavior and to study evolutionary theory, viruses and cancers. He was
recruited to Harvard as part of Summers' commitment to grant tenure to young professors and those who do
interdisciplinary research.
The self-educated Epstein is both a longtime Harvard contributor and a benefactor ofNowak, to whom
he previously donated $500,000, the Harvard Crimson student newspaper reported.
LOAD-DATE: February 8, 2003
EFTA00226838
(26.) A. Sloman, "Architectural Requirements for Human-Like Agents both Natural and Artificial," K.
Dautenhahn, Editor, Human Cognition and Social Agent Technology, John Benjamins, Amsterdam (2000),
pp. 163-195.
(27.) M. Minsky, "Common Sense-Based Interfaces," Communications of the ACM 43, No. 8, 67-73
(2001).
(28.) M. Minsky, "A Framework for Representing Knowledge," Al Laboratory Memo 306, Artificial
Intelligence LabonaMassachusetts Institute of Technology (1974), reprinted in The Psychology of
Computer Vision, Winston, Editor, McGraw-Hill. New York (1975).
(29.) D. Riecken, "An Architecture of Integrated Agents," Communications of the ACM 37, No. 7,
107.116 (1994).
Accepted for publication May 17, 2002.
J. McCarthy
Stanford University
Stanford, California
M. Minsky
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
A. Sloman
University of Birmingham
Birmingham, UK
L. Gong
IBM Research Division
Hawthorne, New York
T. Lau
IBM Research Division
Hawthorne, New York
L. Morgenstern
IBM Research Division
Hawthorne, New York
E. T. Mueller
IBM Research Division
Hawthorne, New York
EFTA00226839
el •
D. Riecken
IBM Research Division
Hawthorne, New York
M. Singh
IBM Research Division
Hawthorne, New York
P. Singh
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
IAC-CREATE-DATE: September 26, 2003
LOAD-DATE: October 07, 2003
EFTA00226840
11:00aa Fron-Fowler-Vhi le Burnett 305709320) 1-151 P 002/00e F-Eise
67/16/2007 09:46 [Phone Redacted] BLACK SREB & KORN PAGE 82
Roy BLACK
BLACK
HOWARD M. aRtneadCR SREBNICK attain= Et:
BO= A. KOlitiatud
Lean A. Swan KORNSPAN JantcA Mesta-
KAnattrr P. PHILlaa
Kau Ntva
JAcest Ptneux
&STUMPF AARON A/MION
MARX A.J. SHAPIRO =PA = Mutes BUTCH. JR.
MArnaW P. OBRivr
JARED Loin
E-Mail: REttocagytovillack.com
July 13, 2007
VIA IFAC6114772 15611802.1787 AND U.B. inn
Assistant zu s Attorney
Office of the United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Re: Grand Jury Subpoena - William Riley
Dear
I represent Jeffrey Epstein, the target of a pending Grand July investigation.
Prior to the initiation of this federal investigation, I represented Mr. Epstein on a
Palm Beach Florida State Attorneys Office investigation and subsequently an
Information, the factual basis of which is identical to, and gave rise to, the federal
investigation presently underway.
In connection with my earlier representation of Mr. Epstein, I hired Mr.
William Riley as a private investigator to act under my direction in anticipation of
defending Mr. Epstein against possible criminal charges and any litigation which
may have followed. All his investigations were done as my agent and thus are
covered by the work product privilege, and all communications to him arc
protected by the attorney client privilege.
Though we are not conceding the existence of any computers that would be
4k
responsive to the subpoena served upon Mr. Riley, to the extent there are any2
such computers, they would contain documents that are privileged attorney-client / All, 7CL.;>. 1
communications and attorney work-product. Your subpoena also asks fo (-e). , ) e
materials describing the scope of hia investigation and thus they are our work j r --/
product. .
20i S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite i300 • stand. Florida llpi • Phone. 30S-37i-642I • Fax: 10S-358.2006 • unev4RoyEtlact.corn
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA Exhibit 34
EFTA00226841
JJI-I6-07 11:0lan Fror-Forloi-White Burnett 305/899201 T-I51 P 003/004 1819
07/16/2007 09:46 [Phone Redacted] BLACg SREB 2, WORN PAGE e3
As you know, the United States Attorneys Office Manual Guidelines for
Issuing Grand Jury and Thal Sub-poi-has to-Attorneya for Information Relating to
the Representation of Clients, requires that the attorney client and work-product
privilleged information sought by the Grand Jury subpoena issued to Mr. Riley
must first be authorized by the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal
Division before it may issue.
Therefore, please Ovise me as to whether the applicable sections of the
United States Attorneys Office Manual was complied with priori° the issuance,
of the Grand Jury subpoena to Mr. Riley. Please also advise as to the preliminarY
11/4) QIV)
steps taken in advance of the issuance of the subpoena, as required by the
Manual. Finally, please provide me with the name of the Assistant Attorney
General of the Criminal Division who undertook the evaluation of the request for
the Grand Jury subpoena, as required by the same section of the Manual and, if
an evaluation was made, the basis upon which the Assistant determined that the
information sought in the subpoena was not protected by a valid claim of privilege.
Sincerely,
R r Black
RS/tog
Black SrebrUck. Komspan & Stumpf. P.A
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011926
EFTA00226842
LAW OF-FMCS O.
B. LEncourrr, P.G.
♦ PROFESSIONµ CORPORATION
CAST 78'" STIIEET
NEW . NEW YOlltooet
GERALD U. LEI- COURT TELEPHONE
12.217370400
[Phone Redacted])(COPRIEW corn
EAESINI-E
([Phone Redacted]
SHERYL E. REICH
michalleBourIlso art
RENATO C. STABILE
0 2,4013 4ekourtIrs corn
FAITH A. FRIEDMAN
1100dITIPATIPIEOWtlawcom
July 25. 2007
BY HAND
Jeffrey Epstein
Dear Mr. Mcnchcl:
We have previously provided you with a memo as to why we believe no charge under I8
U.S.C. §2422(b) could or should be brought against Jeffrey Epstein, even assuming the specific
conduct that you have alleged actually occurred. In that memo, we detailed Congress's intent in
enacting this statute. We also posited that the languSe statute would have to be stretched
beyond recognition to fit the particular facts of Mr. case.t Enclosed is data that strongly
supports the arguments we previously made. We have thoroughly analyzed every prosecution
brought under the statute for which data could be obtained. Based on that analysis, we submit
that the prosecutions actually brought under the statute overwhelmingly confirm the limits to
prosecution we have previously identified.2
I For several months, we have also been consulting on this matter with Stephanie Thacker, former
Principal Deputy Chief, Department of Justice, Child Exploitation & Obscenity Section. Ms. Thacker
supports our position without reservation that this is not a matter upon which the federal statues should
be brought to bear. Ms. Thacker would also welcome any questions or concerns you would like to raise
with her.
2Please note that the enclosed chart amends the one provided to you earlier this week by adding
additional details recently located.
Exhibit 35
EFTA00226843
4.1 2.5,2007 LeCCouri 4 DerSkuivii-E.
/
1
l's 1-4-e.
EFTA00226844
LAW OFfICCli or
GERALD B. LEFCOURT., PC.
For example, of the 184 prosecutions in which at least one count alleges a violation of
§2422(b), in the overwhelming majority of those cases — 160, or over 85% -- the "means" of
interstate communication was the Internet and involved the classic "Internet trolling" — far
different from the behavior alleged here. Of that subset, the vast majority — 113 -- were "sting"
operations involving "children" (actually, agents) said to be between 2 and 14 years of age. The
government in each of those instances took every precaution to verify that the defendant's actions
were undertaken "knowingly". To the extent we can determine the facts, it appears that prior to a
case being brought, in each instance multiple explicit (and recorded) conversations were had, so
there could be no question as to when the inducement was attempted, whether the inducement
was of explicit unlawful sexual activity, or what the defendant's belief was as to the age of the
victim. Again, this has no applicability to the facts alleged here.
The data is informative in other ways, as well. Though there are a handful of cases in
which the telephone is one of a multiple of means of interstate communications allegedly used, in
only two such cases, both far different from the facts here,3 was the use of the telephone the sole
means of the wrongdoing alleged. In the remaining telephone cases, the §2422(b) count is only
one of several amongst various charges of possession of child pornography, violence, and the
like.
The data from the chart also establish that in the vast majority of the cases brought, no
sexual activity was actually consummated. That confirms that prosecutions under §2422(b) are
focused on protecting the federal interest in preventing the means of interstate communication
from being used to commit crimes, particularly with respect to activities that are traditionally
difficult for the state to prosecute. A prosecution predicated on an incidental telephone call used
as a "hook" to trigger federal jurisdiction in order to punish a defendant for the underlying sexual
activity is well out of, not only the mainstream of §2422(b) prosecutions, but all §2422(b) cases
that have ever been brought. Here, the state is fully able to prosecute the conduct alleged.
We understand that the government believes it possesses proof that on various occasions
telephone calls were allegedly made on Mr. Epstein's behalf by other persons who allegedly
3 As detailed in the introductory section to the chart, among the differences arc that those cases involve
pimps who conceded that their businesses hinged on the use of telephones. Moreover, it is unequivocal
that the arrangements being made are for sexual activity with underage women.
EFTA00226845
LAW Of IICZ• or
GERALD B. LEPCOUET. PC.
spoke directly or indirectly to women who were under 18. As the message books taken
(unlawfully, in our view) during the search of Mr. Epstein's home clearly show, many women
initiated the interactions by repeatedly calling to schedule massages. If the calls on which the
government might seek to rely were merely "return" calls, certainly any alleged "inducement"
would be far from unambiguous. And of course, the woman who called would have to have been
known by Mr. Epstein to be under 18, and further, Mr. Epstein would have to have known and
intended that a specific sexual activity unlawful under Florida law was being induced.
Thus, contrary to there being unambiguous proof of the required elements of a §2422(b)
violation in this case, at least the following defects exist:
First, it is hardly the case that every massage resulted in sexual activity. Thus, merely
because there was a telephone call, even one that might have "induced" a massage (which we
dispute), such telephone call is not tantamount to the use of a telephone in violation of the
statute.
Second, even where a particular massage involved masturbation by Mr. Epstein or the
touching of a woman, we dispute that any such conduct is a violation of any applicable Florida
law.
W focused on the evidence which reflects the sworn statement of, for
example, , who told state investigators that she was asked to find women between
18 and 20 who wo provide Mr. Epstein with topless massages and which sometimes involved
their being touched. Fla. Stat. Ann. §796.07, a general statute which proscribes "prostitution"
and "lewdness", regardless of whether an adult or minor is involved, is of very limited
applicability here. That statute's definition of "prostitution" excludes conduct of which there
may be evidence, specifically, a man masturbating himself while touching the breasts of another.
Section 796.07(I)(a) defines "prostitution" as the giving or receiving of the body for sexual
activity for hire. "Sexual activity" is defined to include "the handling or fondling of the sexual
organ of another for the purpose of masturbation". Thus, "sexual activity" appears to cover
situations where a woman is paid to masturbate a man but excludes the situation where the man
masturbates himself in the presence of a woman. Any other reading of this statutory language
would raise constitutional problems of fair warning, vagueness and lenity.
EFTA00226846
LAW orriccs or
GERALD B. LEECOURT. PC.
We are, of course, mindful of the fact that, unbeknownst to Mr. Epstein, some of the
women were in fact not yet 18. It is certainly not clear that any state statutes were violated by
Mr. Epstein's conduct with any of these women, either. Florida law criminalizes relatively little
sexual activity with persons between the ages of 16 and 18. For example, it is not a violation of
the laws regulating sexual activity to receive a massage from a person between 16 and 18 who is
topless or even naked. See Fla. Stat. Ann. §800.04 (lewd and lascivious conduct with a child
between the age of 16 and 18). Nor does that statute make it a crime to touch the breasts or
other private areas of someone between 16 and 18. Id And, of course, even if a state crime was
committed, which we surely do not concede, that does not make out a federal crime, unless it
could be proven that the defendant knowingly induced an illegal act over the telephone.
Moreover, at best, the proof would show that only a small minority of massages resulted
in what may possibly be characterized as sexual activity with a woman under the age of 18. But
even where a massage involved sexual activity with a woman under 18, to the extent Mr. Epstein
did not know the woman was under 18, or the telephone call did not induce the activity, or Mr.
Epstein did not intend the sexual activity at the time the telephone call arranging the massage, or
the person arranging the massage did not intend the sexual activity, there would be multiple
additional barriers to a successful prosecution.
Further, putting aside whether there is sufficient proof that Mr. Epstein knew (and not
merely that he "should have" surmised) that any of the women were in fact under 18, the set of
facts hypothesized above has never before provided a legally sufficient predicate for a
prosecution under §2422(b) - or under any other federal statute.
The enclosed chart clearly and compellingly demonstrates that every charge brought
alleging a violation of §2422(b) is characterized by direct (not circumstantial and certainly not
speculative) evidence of the defendant himself (not others on his behalf) using the means of
interstate communication to communicate an unambiguous inducement to a person known to be
underage or in the case of a sting, represented to be underage (or a person thought to be acting on
behalf of such person) during the very communication that constitutes the required basis for
federal jurisdiction.
EFTA00226847
LAW OrriCCS or
GERALD B. LEFCOURT, P.C.
To our knowledge, the current investigation lacks any direct (or even circumstantial)
proof that an inducement was made by Mr. Epstein during the pivotal communication that is at
the very heart of any potential §2422(b) charge. Even if the government contends that Mr.
Epstein induced unlawful sexual activity at some point, face to face, after a telephone call, the
separation of the communication and the inducement takes Mr. Epstein's alleged misconduct
outside the ambit of federal prosecution. It would be unprecedented (and unprincipled), as the
chart demonstrates, to prosecute Mr. Epstein under §2422(b) absent proof beyond a reasonable
doubt both that he knew the age of the person and that he intended in that communication to
induce sexual activity that is unlawful under Florida law. It would also be unprecedented to
prosecute Mr. Epstein under §2422(b) based on a telephone call made by a third party without
direct proof that Mr. Epstein intended that telephone call to induce unlawful sexual activity.
For all of these reasons, as well as those asserted at the meeting of June 26 and in our
follow up letter dated July 6, 2007, as well as our earlier letter of June 25, we submit that no
charge under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) can be brought. If you have any questions or would like to
discuss this further, we are available.
Very truly yours,
a g-dtn` -2 111 Th OlottotiZ ,
Alan M. Dershowitz
cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq.
EFTA00226848