Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 1 of 6
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 1
EFTA00210689
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 2 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 9:08-cv-80736-ICAM
JANE DOE NO. 1 and JANE DOE NO. 2,
Petitioners,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
VICTIMS FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT
OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT
COME NOW Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe 2, to file this first amended petition
for enforcement of rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. §
3771.
I. Petitioners Jane Doe No. I, Jane Doe No. 2, Jane Doe, No. 3, and Jane Doe
No. 4 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the petitioners"), now adults, were as minor
girls the victims of federal sex crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter
"Defendant") and by other co-conspirators between about 1998 and 2006. These crimes
included sex trafficking of children (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591), use of a means of
interstate commerce entice a minor to commit prostitution (in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2422), travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct (in violation of 18 U.S.0 §
2423), wire fraud (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343), and conspiracy to commit such
crimes (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371). The Defendant and others committed these
crimes within the jurisdiction of the Southern District of Florida in Palm Beach County,
1
EFTA00210690
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 3 of 6
Florida, as well as in other jurisdictions inside and outside the United States. The
Defendant and his co-conspirators committed similar crimes against dozens of other
victims.
2. Upon information and belief, in and around 2005 to 2007, the Defendant and
others were the subject of a federal criminal investigation conducted by the United States
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (hereafter "the U.S. Attorney's
Office") for crimes committed against the petitioners and other similarly situated victims.
In around September 2007, the Defendant and the U.S. Attorney's Office entered a non-
prosecution agreement ("NPA"), under which the Defendant and other potential co-
conspirators would not be prosecuted for their federal crimes against petitioners and other
similarly-situated victims, in exchange for the Defendant's guilty plea to two state
offenses, including solicitation of a minor for prostitution. On June 30, 2008, in the
Circuit Court for Palm Beach, the Defendant entered his guilty plea to the State offenses
and, pursuant to the previous agreement, was sentenced to 18 months in jail.
3. Upon information and belief, around and after September 2007, the Defendant
and the U.S. Attorney's Office conspired together to make the NPA confidential and
thereafter conceal its existence from the petitioners and other similarly situated victims
for as long as possible. This conspiracy was designed to prevent the outcry that would
have resulted from awareness by the petitioners, other victims, and members of the public
that a wealthy, politically -connected defendant was receiving only a short county jail
sentence for hundreds of federal sex crimes committed against minor girls. Among the
means used by the conspiracy to conceal the existence of the non-prosecution agreement
were false statements directed by the Office that the case was "still under investigation"
2
EFTA00210691
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 4 of 6
and the Office was considering whether to file charges, when in fact the Office had
already entered into the NPA.
4. Under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, when the
investigation had focused on the Defendant — and at all times thereafter — the petitioners
and other similarly-situated crime victims had the rights (among others) to notice of their
rights under the CVRA, to reasonably confer with the prosecutors, to notice of court
hearings involving them, and to be treated with fairness.
5. By cooperating together to conceal the NPA's existence until after it has
become fully effective — and by taking other improper steps to prevent the investigation
and prosecution of the Defendant and his co-conspirators — the U.S. Attorney's Office
and the Defendant denied and continues to deny petitioners and other similarly-situated
victims their rights (among others) to reasonably confer with prosecutors about the NPA
and other aspects of the case, to notice that the June 30, 2008, hearing related to crimes
committed against them, to restitution, and to be treated with fairness.
WHEREFORE, the petitioners respectfully request this Court grant them
appropriate remedies to fully enforce their rights, including (1) a declaration that the NPA
is illegal and was entered into in violation of their rights, (2) a declaration that if after
consultation with the victims the U.S. Attorney's Office determines that prosecution of
Epstein and of others is appropriate then prosecution is permitted, (3) a declaration that
the Office shall reasonably confer with the petitioners and other similarly-situated victims
about whether to prosecute Epstein and his co-conspirators, (4) a release of all
information surrounding the circumstances of the Office's initial decision not to pursue
3
EFTA00210692
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 5 of 6
criminal prosecution, and (5) all other appropriate remedies that the Court deems just and
proper.
The petitioners request appropriate discovery and an evidentiary hearing to prove
their allegations and secure the relief requested above.
DATED: February 6. 2015
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Bradley J. Edwards
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS
LEHRMAN, P.L.
and
Paul G. Cassell
Pro Hac Vice
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah.
Attorneys for Victims
• This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah
4
EFTA00210693
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the foregoing document was served on February 6, 2015, on the
following using the Court's CM/ECF system:
Attorneys for the Government
/s/ Bradley J. Edwards
5
EFTA00210694
📷 Images in this document (6 detected)
AI-generated factual descriptions of embedded images (llava:13b). These are searchable across the corpus.
[Image 1] The image displays a document with text, which appears to be a legal or official document. The text is in English and is structured in a formal manner, typical of legal or official correspondence. The document includes numbered paragraphs, which are often used to organize information in a clear and structured way. The text is too small to read in detail, but it seems to be discussing legal matters
[Image 2] The image is a scanned document, specifically a page from a court case file. The document is a formal legal document with text and numbered paragraphs. The text is in English and appears to be a legal brief or a court order. The document includes a title, case number, and a date, which is redacted for privacy. The visible text includes references to legal statutes and case law, as well as a descri
[Image 3] The image is a document scan, specifically a court document. It appears to be a page from a legal case file, with visible text that includes names, dates, and other legal information. The document is titled "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA" and includes a case number and a date. There are sections titled "Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment" and "Defendant's Response
[Image 4] The image appears to be a document, specifically a court filing or a legal document. It contains text and a header that includes the name of the court, the case number, and the date. The visible text includes a title, a list of parties involved, and a description of the case. There are also sections for the plaintiff's and defendant's names, addresses, and contact information. The document is stru
[Image 5] The image appears to be a document, specifically a page from a legal or official document. The text is too small to read clearly, but it seems to be a formal document with a header and footer. There is a visible watermark or logo in the upper right corner, but the details are not clear due to the resolution of the image. The document is titled "Certificate of Service," which suggests it is related
[Image 6] The image appears to be a screenshot of a document or a digital file. The text in the image is not fully legible due to the resolution and angle of the image. However, the visible text includes the word "EXHIBIT" in uppercase letters, which suggests that the document may be related to an exhibition or display. The rest of the text is not clear enough to provide a detailed description. The document