EFTA01070608

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No.: 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE 41 and JANE DOES #2, Petitioners, - vs- UNITED STATES, Respondent. HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA Friday, August 12, 2011 United States Federal Courthouse West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 2:00 - 4:19 p.m. Reported By: Melinda Colchico Notary Public, State of Florida J. Consor & Associates 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Phone: 561-682-0905 EFTA01070608 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, a and I ras•cir•,,,•, Ire 1 APPEARANCES: 2 On behalf of the Petitioners: 3 BRAD EDWARDS, ESQ. FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS & LEHMAN 4 425 N. ANDREWS AVENUE, SUITE 2 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33301 5 (954) 524-2820 6 PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQ. USJ QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW 7 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 332 SOUTH 1400 EAST, ROOM 101 8 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84112-0730 (801) 585-5202 9 JAY C. HOWELL, ESQ. 10 JAY HOWELL & ASSOCIATES 644 CESERY BOULEVARD, SUITE 250 11 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32211 (904) 680-1234 12 13 On behalf of the Respondent: 14 DEXTER A. LEE, ESQ. MARIE VILLAFANA, ESQ. 15 ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEYS 99 NE 4TH STREET, SUITE 300 16 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 (305) 961-9320 17 18 ALSO PRESENT: 19 ROY BLACK, ESQ. BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN & STUMPF 20 201 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 21 (305) 371-6421 22 BRUCE REINHART, ESQ. 250 S. AUSTRALIAN AVENUE 23 SUITE 1400 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 24 (561) 202-6360 25 Page: 2 EFTA01070609 sor & Associates Repottttt . and Irso•cop—,n, Ire 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 3 THE COURT: Good afternoon. Please be seated. 4 This is the case of Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe 5 No. 2, versus United States, Case No. 08-80736. 6 Will counsel state their appearances, please. 7 MR. LEE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. May it 8 please the Court. For the United States of 9 America, Marie Villafana, Assistant United States 10 Attorney, and Dexter Lee, Assistant United States 11 Attorney. Good afternoon. 12 THE COURT: Good afternoon. 13 MR. EDWARDS: Good afternoon. On behalf of 14 Jane Does 1 and 2, Brad Edwards, as well as my 15 co-counsels, Paul Cassell and Jay Howell. 16 THE COURT: Good afternoon. 17 MR. BLACK: Your Honor, good afternoon. Roy 18 Black appearing on behalf of the intervening 19 lawyers, Black, Weinberg and Lefkowitz. 20 THE COURT: Good afternoon. 21 MR. REINHART: Good afternoon, Your Honor. 22 Bruce Reinhart on behalf of myself. 23 THE COURT: Good afternoon. Anyone else 24 that's going to be participating as an attorney? 25 All right. We have a number of matters to go Page: 3 EFTA01070610 sor & Associates Itcre,,,,, z and tras•s•ip.int. It f 1 over today. I thought the first thing I should do is 2 figure out who's going to be participating in the 3 proceedings. So I think I should deal with the 4 intervenors' motions first before we get to any of the 5 substantive motions. 6 So, Mr. Reinhart, why don't I hear from you 7 first. 8 MR. REINHART: Good afternoon, Your Honor. 9 THE COURT: Good afternoon. 10 MR. REINHART: Let me start by saying I don't 11 want to be here and I shouldn't be here but I feel 12 like I have to be. What is pending before you 13 today is a motion by the plaintiffs to address what 14 they purport to be violations of the Crime Victims' 15 Right Act by the government. However, buried in 16 that motion, for reasons that escape me to this 17 day, are allegations that I, who am not a party to 18 this litigation, have never been counsel in this 19 litigation and was minding my own business, have 20 now been alleged to have violated the Department of 21 Justice's regulations and the Florida Bar rules. 22 If you look at the face of the motion, it's 23 clear that there's absolutely no reason for that to 24 be in the motion other than it's a personal attack 25 for the purpose of harassment and abuse. To my Page:4 EFTA01070611 sor & Associates Ripe,,,,. [ and 1ras•cir—,n, lc e 1 knowledge, these allegations have never been sent 2 to the Florida Bar, even though Mr. Edwards, as a 3 member of the bar, would have an obligation to 4 report them if he believed they were true. But he 5 hasn't. They have never been reported to the 6 Department of Justice, even though there are civil 7 and criminal sanctions, if, in fact, they believed 8 it was true and they believed I did what they said 9 I did. 10 Rather than putting these allegations into 11 that sort of a forum, where I would have a chance 12 to respond and the investigation would be 13 confidential and I could clear my name in private, 14 they've thrown them into this litigation in a 15 public pleading and now they say I shouldn't be 16 allowed to respond to it. 17 THE COURT: Well, haven't you really responded 18 to it? 19 MR. REINHART: Judge, I've said what I want to 20 say but there's been no finding. There's been 21 no -- frankly, there's been no inquiry why in the 22 first place they did what they did, and I think 23 that's really the issue before the Court today. 24 It's not the merits of whether what they say is 25 true or not true. It's not, but that's not the Page: 5 EFTA01070612 * sor & Associates Itrpoling and Tra•ctiptios, In. 1 issue for you today. The issue is whether the 2 Court is going to sanction this sort of behavior 3 and whether we're going to have a legal system 4 where I could stand here in a commercial litigation 5 case and put in a pleading that my neighbor is a 6 tax evader or that the guy down the street is 7 cheating on his wife. I mean, we have rules of 8 court that are supposed to limit the facts at issue 9 to the facts at issue. And if we start letting 10 people simply make ad hominem attacks outside of 11 the four corners of the case, the Court can't allow 12 that. 13 So what the Court ought to do, most 14 respectfully, in this case, is to -- whether you 15 allow me to intervene and pursue it myself or 16 whether you do it on your own, you ought to convene 17 some sort of a proceeding and make the plaintiffs 18 justify why they put these allegations in this 19 pleading when they so clearly don't belong there 20 and what, if any, investigation they did to support 21 them. And that's what I'm asking you to do today 22 is to simply convene that process, and if they 23 complied with the rules of the court and they did 24 their sufficient investigation, then the proceeding 25 will show that. And if they were reckless and they Page:6 EFTA01070613 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, z and froy•t•ip, ot. It( 1 were malicious and they did it just because they 2 could, they ought to be sanctioned for it, and the 3 Court ought to send a message that you're not going 4 to tolerate that sort of behavior. 5 So, Judge, in short, that's what I'm asking 6 you to do, either exercise your discretion under 7 Rule 24(b) to allow me to be a permissive 8 intervenor and pursue those allegations myself, or 9 to exercise your authority under Rule 11 to 10 sua sponte issue an order to show cause and convene 11 that proceeding. 12 THE COURT: If I let you intervene to try and 13 clear your name from what you consider a slanderous 14 or libelous attack, aren't I essentially inviting 15 anyone who has a slanderous or libelous or 16 defamatory statement made against them in 17 litigation, inviting them to come in and intervene 18 in a court and have the court conduct a mini-trial 19 on whether or not the allegations are true and -- I 20 mean, I'm basically going to open up the legal 21 system to anyone who feels offended by something 22 that's said in court to come in and start 23 mini-lawsuits within a lawsuit. 24 I'm a little concerned about, you know, 25 opening the door to that kind of a process. Page: 7 EFTA01070614 * sor & Associates grinning and Trinctiption. In. 1 MR. REINHART: And I understand that, and I 2 agree. However, first of all, this is 3 permissive -- I'm requesting permissive 4 intervention under Rule 24. So in the first 5 instance, you have the discretion to be the 6 gatekeeper in that instance, not to let everybody 7 in. I'm not saying I have an absolute right to be 8 here. I'm saying you have the discretion to allow 9 me to be here and to argue these points. So that's 10 my first response, is the Court can act as a 11 gatekeeper. And specific to the facts here, all 12 you have to do is look at the face of the pleading 13 to realize that these allegations have nothing to 14 do with this cause of action. It's not even close. 15 I would think in another case when the Court 16 might look at the face of the pleading and say, 17 well, I can understand why this might be here, you 18 can exercise that gatekeeping function. In the 19 alternative, Judge, I'm not asking you to let 20 everybody in. I'm asking you, as the Court, to 21 police your own courtroom and issue an order to 22 show cause for behavior that's occurred in front of 23 you that at least on its face is improper. And 24 that's certainly a proper function for the Court. 25 Again, that doesn't set a precedent that anybody Page: 8 EFTA01070615 sor & Associates Repo,,,,, z and Inv•t•op.i.ot. NC 1 who wants to complain can complain. It's the Court 2 policing its own backyard. 3 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 4 Who wants to respond? Mr. Edwards? 5 MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, Your Honor. 6 Your Honor, as you recognized from our pleadings, 7 we feel that this particular motion serves no 8 purpose but to delay and prejudice the plaintiffs 9 from achieving justice. As you know, we represent 10 two victims of many victims of molestation by 11 Jeffrey Epstein, and there's one issue here and 12 that's whether or not the Crime Victims' Rights Act 13 and their rights under that act were violated. 14 First, we don't believe that Mr. Reinhart has 15 standing to make the arguments or -- 16 THE COURT: Well, who has standing to make the 17 arguments other than the person that you attacked 18 in your motion? 19 MR. EDWARDS: Well, a nonparty in this 20 proceeding does not have standing to make a Rule 11 21 sanction motion. So he's asking for -- 22 THE COURT: He's asking to come into court SO 23 he can seek that kind of relief. 24 MR. EDWARDS: That's the kind of satellite 25 litigation we think should be avoided here. In Page: 9 EFTA01070616 sor & Associates Rcro,,,,, a and Iras•cir•,,n, lie 1 fact, the case law is clear that permissive 2 intervention, if denied, is virtually never 3 overturned on appeal because we don't want to 4 encourage this type of satellite litigation. 5 A Rule 11 standard, as we know, is an 6 objective standard and the analysis is whether a 7 reasonable attorney in like circumstances could 8 believe that his actions were factually and legally 9 justified. 10 We believe there was a bad deal that went 11 down. We have circumstances here that we are still 12 trying to figure out how it happened and why it 13 happened, and the circumstances that we had before 14 we put them into these pleadings is simply that 15 Mr. Reinhart was a U.S. Attorney from 1996 through 16 2008; yet on October 23rd, 2007 -- 17 THE COURT: We don't need to go over all the 18 facts again. I know what the facts are. I know 19 what you said in your pleading. I know what 20 Mr. Reinhart said in response. And I don't -- I'm 21 not here to decide whether there was or was not a 22 bad faith allegation. I'm here to decide whether 23 or not I should allow Mr. Reinhart into the 24 proceeding in order to litigate that whole issue. 25 MR. EDWARDS: And we're asking that you deny Page: 10 EFTA01070617 *poling sor & Associates and Trinctiption, In. 1 that motion. If it's granted, we would like to 2 take discovery on that matter, including his 3 deposition. 4 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 5 Mr. Lee, do you have anything you wanted to 6 say? 7 MR. LEE: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. We did 8 not oppose Mr. Reinhart's motion. We basically 9 view this as a matter between the petitioners' 10 counsel and Mr. Reinhart. 11 THE COURT: All right. At this point, I'm 12 going to reserve ruling. I'm not going to -- I'm 13 kind of reluctant to grant the motion, but I'm 14 going to give it some further thought. There's no 15 need to have a ruling on that today for purposes of 16 Mr. Reinhart's concerns. So I'll reserve ruling. 17 All right. Let me hear from Mr. Black on the 18 intervention by the attorneys. 19 MR. BLACK: May it please the Court, and good 20 afternoon. 21 THE COURT: Good afternoon. 22 MR. BLACK: We have filed -- the three lawyers 23 who previously represented Mr. Epstein have filed 24 for our right to intervene under Rule 24(a) as an 25 intervention of right because our issue relates to Page: I I EFTA01070618 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, z and fras•c•ip.int. cc 1 the property or the transaction. 2 THE COURT: Are you saying you have a -- is it 3 as a matter of right or -- 4 MR. BLACK: Yes. 5 THE COURT: -- permissive intervention? 6 MR. BLACK: No, as a matter of right. I just 7 have a few cases to cite to the Court. 8 In Chiles versus Thornburgh, it's an Eleventh 9 Circuit case, 1989, 865 F. 2d 1197, the court says, 10 "The Supreme Court has held that an interest under 11 Rule 24(a)(2) means a 'significantly protectable 12 interest.'" 13 The Eleventh Circuit has gone on and In Re: 14 Grand Jury Matter, which is 735 F. 2d 1330, to say 15 that -- it was a motion to intervene. The district 16 court disallowed it. It went up to the circuit. 17 It was remanded, and the court says: We have 18 recognized that a district court should allow 19 intervention by a client in the first instance as 20 soon as the attorney/client privilege issue is 21 raised. 22 That was a grand jury proceeding dealing with 23 a client seeking to protect his attorney/client 24 privilege, and the court held that intervention was 25 as a matter of right. Now, that obviously was a Page: 12 EFTA01070619 sor & Associates Itcre,,,,, a and Ins•‘-ir—,,,,, lc e 1 criminal investigation. 2 In terms of the -- on the civil docket, this 3 court decided in El-Al Residences v. Mt. Hawley 4 Insurance, which is at 716 F. Supp. 2d 1257, an 5 opinion by Magistrate Judge McAliley, in which he 6 says that the law in this circuit and others is 7 clear that this court must allow intervention by a 8 client in the first instance as soon as the 9 attorney/client privilege is raised, citing cases. 10 Colorable claims of attorney/client and work 11 product privilege are a textbook example of an 12 entitlement to intervention as a matter of right, 13 and citing particular cases. 14 THE COURT: Now, let me ask you about that 15 question of privilege. As I understand your 16 motion, you're claiming that documents that were 17 exchanged between yourself and the other attorneys 18 representing Mr. Epstein and the United States 19 Attorney's Office and maybe the State of Florida -- 20 I don't remember if the -- 21 MR. BLACK: It is just the United States 22 Attorney, Your Honor. 23 THE COURT: Okay. The United States Attorney. 24 During the negotiations that resulted in the 25 non-prosecution agreement are somehow work product, Page: 13 EFTA01070620 sor & Associates Repo,,,,, z and tras•c•ori,ot. It c 1 am I correct? 2 MR. BLACK: Yes, sir. 3 THE COURT: Okay. How can a letter between 4 you and your co-counsel and an adversary in a 5 criminal prosecution be considered work product, if 6 it's given to the adversary? 7 MR. BLACK: Yes, sir, and I am happy to answer 8 that question. In order to do so, I have to give 9 the Court some background as to the duties and 10 functions of lawyers as they are of this date in 11 our sentencing system, under the guidelines system 12 and under the particular rules, not only of the 13 court but of the ethical rules of the ABA and the 14 Florida Bar and rules issued by the courts. 15 To begin with, the Supreme Court has 16 recognized for a long time that plea bargaining is 17 an essential part of the administration of justice. 18 It all goes back to the Santobello case. That was 19 40 years ago. The world has changed significantly 20 since then. 21 I just looked at the statistics. The last 22 year I could find in 2005, 87 percent of all 23 federal criminal cases were resolved by a guilty 24 plea and 3.9 percent were resolved by a trial. 25 We've turned into a system of guilty pleas rather Page: 14 EFTA01070621 sor & Associates Itcpe,,,,, a and I,,,•. ir—,,•, Ire 1 than a trial system. And because of that, the 2 courts have put a lot of duties and obligations on 3 lawyers dealing with this plea bargaining process. 4 And as a result of that, the courts and the rules 5 have added sanctions -- excuse me, safeguards to 6 protect us because of communications made during 7 the course of this plea bargaining process. And I 8 think that is really what we trying to get to here. 9 There are safeguards that have been in effect 10 since -- for almost 80 years. And there's a case, 11 United States v. Herman back in the seventies from 12 the Fifth Circuit, saying that the -- the old Fifth 13 Circuit, that we have recognized a type of immunity 14 for any statements made during the course of plea 15 bargaining. And then the Supreme Court and 16 Congress enacted Rule 11(e)(6), which became Rule 17 11(f), and, of course, now refers us to Rule 410. 18 So those rules provide safeguards. What they do is 19 they say if you engage in the plea bargaining 20 process, there is an immunity for the statements 21 that are made. 22 Any statements that relate to the plea 23 bargaining process are immunized. They don't use 24 the word "immunization" but they make it clear that 25 that's the type of protection or cloak that's given Page: 15 EFTA01070622 * sor & Associates Itrpotiong and fn. • tr tin, Inc. 1 to these kind of communications. 2 THE COURT: You're talking about inculpatory 3 statements, aren't you? 4 MR. BLACK: Any statement; any statement made 5 during the course of plea bargaining. Rule 410 6 speaks, by the way, of civil and criminal, and it 7 says nothing about incriminating or inculpatory or 8 admissions of guilt. Any statement made during the 9 course of the plea negotiating process is given a 10 type of immunity. 11 THE COURT: I thought that rule relates to 12 admitting statements in evidence during the course 13 of a trial; not that it's a privileged statement 14 that can never be disclosed. Am I incorrect about 15 that? 16 MR. BLACK: Well, I don't -- I'm not -- that's 17 a very good question that we have struggled some 18 with. What are the obligations of, for example, 19 the United States Attorney when they receive 20 communications from defense counsel under Rule 11 21 and under Rule 410? Under Rule 11, they cannot 22 even make derivative use of it so they couldn't 23 take that information and give it to the FBI, for 24 example, to continue investigating. 25 I don't believe that they could give to it Page: 16 EFTA01070623 sor & Associates Repo,,,,, [ and F13,•••lr , i111. Ire 1 third parties. I think it would be a violation of 2 the rule to use it in any way other than in 3 determining the type of plea that they would offer 4 to a defendant. 5 Beyond that, I do not believe that it can be 6 used for any purpose by the government, and I don't 7 believe that anybody could use it for any purpose. 8 But even so, in this case, the purpose the 9 plaintiffs want for this is to use it in 10 litigation. So we don't have to worry about if 11 they're going to disseminate it to the media or use 12 it to write a book, or what have you. They intend 13 to use it as evidence in this proceeding. So I 14 don't know that we need to necessarily address any 15 other kinds of uses of this material. 16 THE COURT: Is this material -- first of all, 17 how does -- how do the plaintiffs in this case know 18 about it? Don't they already have it in their 19 possession? 20 MR. BLACK: No. They have obtained the 21 government responses and communications to us. The 22 courts have redacted -- or the government has 23 redacted any of our communications to the 24 government. Now, there are extensive 25 communications. I don't have it here, but my Page: 17 EFTA01070624 sor & Associates Repo,,,,. g and Fraeneripiroa. Irc 1 folder is about this thick and I have never been in 2 a case that has had as much, particularly written 3 communication, from defense counsel to the 4 government as this case has. 5 We have discussed with them a panoply of 6 things. It's the classic opinion work product that 7 we talk about, what the statutes mean, what the 8 import of the statutes are, what the cases are, 9 what the discretion of the Attorney General is. We 10 discuss federalism, the differences between state 11 and federal law enforcement; whether or not the 12 government should proceed with this case because of 13 various policy reasons. This is classic opinion 14 work product that we send to the government. 15 Now, I know what the Court's ultimate question 16 is: Well, if you send it to the government, why 17 should I give it any kind of confidentiality or 18 privilege? The reason I'm going through this is 19 that we criminal lawyers know that today anything 20 that we send to the government is under this cloak 21 of a type of immunity; that it cannot be used for 22 anything. The government cannot use it in their 23 case. They can't use it in their investigation. 24 They can't use it for anything other than the 25 purpose for which we give it to them, and that's to Page: 18 EFTA01070625 sor & Associates Rcrettttt z and Iras•cir—,,,, i I f 1 determine whether or not we can come to a plea 2 negotiation. 3 And one of the policy decisions here, and this 4 is why I believe that a privilege applies, is that 5 if the Court should say a civil plaintiff could 6 obtain our communications with the government, in 7 which we discuss everything in the world about this 8 client, and use it in a civil case against the 9 client, all this is going to do is to begin to 10 prevent us from having those kind of 11 communications. And all these cases about plea 12 bargaining say that the most important thing is to 13 have open, honest and frank discussions between the 14 parties to see if any kind of agreement can be 15 reached, and since you have these open and frank 16 conversations you don't have to worry that these 17 materials can in any way be used against your 18 client. 19 THE COURT: All right. Do you have any cases 20 that address this principle in the context of -- 21 similar to what we are doing, with where someone 22 was trying to get this kind of information in a 23 civil case? 24 MR. BLACK: I have never seen a case, a civil 25 case, in which a third party plaintiff has been Page: 19 EFTA01070626 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, a and 1ra•••••c•,,Ii. Ire 1 able to obtain letters and communications and 2 briefs of defense counsel sent to a prosecutor in 3 order to seek a plea bargain. There is no such 4 case. 5 THE COURT: And what cases are you relying on 6 for the proposition that these are cloaked with 7 some type of privilege of non-disclosure? 8 MR. BLACK: Yes, sir. I would rely on United 9 States versus Herman, which is 544 F. 2d 791. 10 That's a Fifth Circuit case of 1977. And, of 11 course, the classic case is Santobello. For some 12 reason I don't have it right here in my folder, 13 although I've got it right here, I believe, which 14 is United States Supreme Court at 404 U.S. 257. 15 So those talk about the safeguards. I just 16 wanted to add two things to this, after I pick up 17 my notes. The courts -- in addition to encouraging 18 plea bargaining -- issued a series of opinions 19 starting in the late 1990s, starting with the 20 Second Circuit, moving to the Ninth Circuit, and 21 now all the circuits do this, in which they say 22 that defense lawyers are ineffective and commit 23 malpractice if they do not communicate with the 24 prosecutor in seeking a plea bargain. 25 There's one case, United States v. Leonti, Page: 20 EFTA01070627 sor & Associates R,0^,,, e[z and 1ras•cir•,,,i. ilf 1 which is a Ninth Circuit case, which says that you 2 not only have to communicate with the prosecutor, 3 you have to go with your client during the 4 briefings. You have to keep them advised as to 5 what your client is doing and you have to follow 6 this all the way through the end. So the courts 7 put an obligation on us to follow through on this. 8 Now, to get to the work product privilege -- 9 THE COURT: Before you move on -- 10 MR. BLACK: Yes, sir. 11 THE COURT: -- I don't remember you citing 12 these cases or making this argument in your brief. 13 Did I miss it or is this a new twist on what 14 you've -- based upon my question to you? Or is 15 this a new argument that you're raising that you 16 didn't raise before? 17 MR. BLACK: Well, in our -- we filed a motion 18 for intervention and generally set forth what we I 19 intended to do, and the plaintiffs then responded 20 saying that, we object to intervention but request 21 the right to brief whether or not the work product 22 privilege applies if we're granted intervention. 23 So we're at the stage of intervention not at 24 the time of developing the scope of what the 25 privilege is, but the Court asked me, you know, Page: 21 EFTA01070628 * sor & Associates Itrpoling and Tranctiphos. In. 1 obviously what the bottom line is. But I think 2 that the only real issue here is intervention. I'm 3 happy to discuss, you know, the contours of the 4 privilege and why it applies in this case. 5 THE COURT: So you're saying -- your position 6 at this point is, I've made an assertion of 7 privilege; I as -- just on that assertion alone, 8 without regard to the merits of whether the 9 documents are or are not privileged, your mere 10 assertion of the privilege requires me to let you 11 in in order to try and defend that claim? 12 MR. BLACK: Well, I don't think it's quite 13 that cut and dry. I have made -- I have asserted 14 the privilege. I have to have some basis for it. 15 In other words, I couldn't just make some frivolous 16 comment and say, you know, there's an 17 attorney/client privilege or this or that. I think 18 I have to make some statement that there is some 19 good faith basis for saying this. And in our 20 papers, we did this. 21 I'm happy to say more, but I think there's 22 certainly enough here for the Court to say that it 23 is a matter that is of serious concern and that we 24 ought to be able to intervene in order to address 25 it with the Court. Because if we don't address it, Page: 22 EFTA01070629 sor & Associates Rapettttt z and fraa•c•po i t. lir 1 it will be lost. 2 THE COURT: All right. So, again, I'm trying 3 to make sure I didn't miss something in the papers. 4 As I understood your moving papers, you claim that 5 these are work product privileged documents or 6 there was some grand jury material involved in 7 this. 8 MR. BLACK: Yes. There is some 6(e) material 9 as well. 10 THE COURT: All right. And, again, maybe I 11 missed it in all the materials I had to go through 12 for today, but did you make the claim in your 13 papers that it's work product because part of the 14 attorney -- criminal defense attorney's 15 responsibility is getting into plea negotiations 16 and there's this privilege of communications with 17 the prosecutors in dealing with plea negotiations; 18 was that line of -- 19 MR. BLACK: Yes. 20 THE COURT: -- reasoning made? 21 MR. BLACK: Right, because that's all these 22 papers are. We said it's privileged because of 23 these communications, because of the importance of 24 keeping open and frank communications, and that it 25 fits under the privilege. Page: 23 EFTA01070630 * sor & Associates Rcpt.ling and In. •t; lion, Inc. 1 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to 2 interrupt you. What else did you want to say? 3 MR. BLACK: All right. The other thing that I 4 wanted to mention is that there are the restatement 5 of the law regarding lawyers in the latest -- from 6 the American Law Institute, used as an example 7 under the purpose of 410, where a party actually 8 sends documents to the government to examine under 9 a limited -- under confidentiality and limited use, 10 and the American Law Institute says that does not 11 waive the work product privilege. 12 The difference -- I don't want to get too deep 13 into it right now, but the difference between the 14 two is you can give work product to other people 15 and not waive its type of work product; whereas you 16 do in the attorney/client privilege. As soon as 17 you give anything under the attorney/client 18 privilege to a third party, you waive it, but not 19 under work product. If it still has some 20 protection associated with it, the question is, 21 under work product, did you give it to people just 22 to use however they want or was there some 23 limitation on it? And what's important here is the 24 things that were sent to the government -- and 25 while we were adversaries at the time, although we Page: 24 EFTA01070631 sor & Associates Repettttt z and frar•cip.iiit. cc 1 no longer became adversaries -- it was under the 2 protections that were given to these materials. 3 And I would -- there's one case I would 4 analogize to, although it's not exactly, obviously, 5 the same. Judge Marcus decided this case dealing 6 with an American Airlines Crash near Cali, Colombia 7 and American Airlines was part of a program where 8 its pilots could report FAA violations to them and 9 to the FAA and it was considered confidential. 10 Judge Marcus, while he was on this court, said 11 that under Rule 501 -- even if you don't find any 12 of these other privileges, under 501, where you can 13 accept common law privileges, he said, I would find 14 a limited common law privilege for a reporting 15 function like this because it is so important to 16 prevent airline disasters that I think that these 17 things ought to be privileged to facilitate open 18 and frank discussions between the pilots and the 19 FAA, and what have you, because it's too important. 20 And, certainly, this fits under that same type of a 21 rubric. 22 If we have a problem with work product, I 23 think that we can find a common law privilege of 24 communication here because of the importance given 25 to plea negotiations that would keep these out of Page: 25 EFTA01070632 sor & Associates Kepi,,,,, z and 113••4•Ir'411. if f 1 the hands of the plaintiffs who intend to use it 2 against our clients. 3 So I think for a number of reasons this court 4 should allow this intervention. I don't think now 5 is the time to make the decision or the ultimate 6 decision. But I would say this: If there's any 7 kind of balancing here, the importance of 8 protecting communications in plea bargaining today 9 is very important. It's important to this court, 10 to all the courts dealing with trying to resolve 11 criminal cases. And all the cases say that's 12 something that ought to be encouraged. 13 The plaintiffs, who have already filed for 14 summary judgment, who have said numerous times they 15 have all the evidence they need, certainly have a 16 very low, if any, need for anything from us to try 17 to prove their case. So if there's any kind of a 18 balancing test here, I think that it certainly goes 19 in favor of protecting these materials. 20 THE COURT: What do you think in these 21 materials is protected under Rule 6? 22 MR. BLACK: I think that all the materials 23 that the plaintiff is requiring are -- oh, under 24 6(e)? 25 THE COURT: Yes. Page: 26 EFTA01070633 sor & Associates Repo,,,,, [ and 1ras•e•op•,,ot, Ire 1 MR. BLACK: Under 6(e), what happens is that 2 in a number of the letters we discuss materials 3 that we have been shown or know of, like names of 4 witnesses, names of victims and what have you. 5 That goes back and forth. That is obviously grand 6 jury material. Now, I can't say that there's a 7 large amount of that. There is some discussion of 8 those things in these letters, but I wouldn't say 9 that it's more than 10 percent of them. The rest 10 of them are just all the lawyers talking about the 11 law and that type of thing. 12 THE COURT: And what standing would you have 13 to complain about grand jury material being 14 released? 15 MR. BLACK: I think that any officer of the 16 court has standing to complain about the 17 dissemination and violation -- of grand jury 18 materials in violation of 6(e). I don't know that 19 anybody needs a particular standing for that. 20 THE COURT: I mean, if the government -- I 21 don't know what the government's position on that 22 is. But if the government isn't concerned, you 23 think you can step in and say, hey, you're not 24 honoring your obligations under 6(e); I'm going to 25 step in? Page: 27 EFTA01070634 * sor & Associates Rrpotion and Tratitiptios. In. 1 MR. BLACK: Actually, there are times when we 2 do that. For example, if a government agent should 3 disseminate grand jury materials to the news media, 4 there have been times when we have made complaints 5 for violations of 6(e). And I've even -- I have 6 filed letters with the Department of Justice to the 7 Attorney General complaining about prosecutors, and 8 I won't mention any names -- not in this case -- 9 who have disseminated 6(e) material in violation of 10 the rules. So I think that any party can make a 11 complaint. 12 THE COURT: I assume you've done that when it 13 adversely affected one of your clients? 14 MR. BLACK: Well, obviously, because 15 THE COURT: Not because it -- just to protect 16 the system? 17 MR. BLACK: Your Honor is exactly right. This 18 is a highly adversarial system and the only reason 19 I'm objecting to it now is because it's beneficial 20 to my client. I'm not doing it out of any 21 eleemosynary intent. 22 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. 23 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honor. 24 THE COURT: Mr. Edwards. 25 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, we are asking that Page: 28 EFTA01070635 1 4fr sor & Associates Retie,,,,, z and 1ras•c•prime. Ire in Your Honor deny the motion to intervene in this 2 case. Mr. Black and these attorneys have not 3 intervened on behalf of Mr. Epstein, who may 4 actually have an interest. They have no stake in 5 the outcome of this case. There is no case that 6 stands for -- 7 THE COURT: Well, I mean, if they are right 8 that this is work product material -- and maybe 9 that is not something that I can decide now, but to 10 the extent that it might arguably be work product 11 material, don't they have standing to protect their 12 own work product? 13 MR. EDWARDS: The cases that Mr. Black cited 14 indicated or held that they needed a colorable 15 argument for work product. You can't just come in 16 and claim work product. And there is a plethora of 17 cases that stand for the proposition, and has only 18 been followed everywhere throughout the country, 19 that voluntary disclosure of work product 20 information to an adversary waives work product. 21 The other rules of evidence that Mr. Black 22 referred to, 410, don't apply to this case. That 23 is a rule of admissibility rather than 24 discoverability. They're not being entered against 25 Mr. Epstein in this case. They are being entered, Page: 29 EFTA01070636 sor & Associates Repo,,,,, z and fros•c•ori,t. cc 1 if at all, against the government. 2 And just to correct the statement that he made 3 that the government redacted the portions of the 4 emails and correspondence from Mr. Epstein's 5 attorneys to the government, that's not how this 6 happened. In previous litigation, it was ordered 7 that all of it be turned over to us from 8 Mr. Epstein, and they unilaterally made the 9 decision to redact the information from their 10 attorneys going to the government. And prior to 11 the order that granted us permission to receive 12 this correspondence, all of these arguments, the 13 work product, the 410 argument, all of them were 14 before this court and all of them were overruled. 15 We've been down this road before. We would argue 16 that it's the law of the case at this point, since 17 these are similar issues, and there is no colorable 18 argument of work product at this point, and the 19 intervention should be denied. 20 THE COURT: All right. The cases that you're 21 relying on and that I, at least coming in here, was 22 thinking about that when you disclose something to 23 an adversary it's no longer a work product, are you 24 familiar with the cases in the context of plea 25 negotiations where there's an exception or there's Page: 30 EFTA01070637 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, z and tras•c•priot. NC 1 some different type of privilege that applies in 2 plea negotiations between the government and a 3 criminal defendant? 4 MR. EDWARDS: We have read every case in his 5 brief, as well as any others on this subject, and 6 can't find a single case out there that stands for 7 that proposition. It just doesn't exist. So the 8 cases that he's spoken about don't say that there 9 is this automatic cloak of immunity between plea 10 discussions. In fact, there are cases talking 11 about plea discussions, and there isn't that. 12 This doesn't come up that much because this is 13 a unique scenario where the best evidence of how 14 the victims' rights were violated, when and by 15 whom, is going to be found in the correspondence 16 between the government and Mr. Epstein, as we have 17 already seen from the half of the conversation that 18 we've been able to see. 19 THE COURT: Let me ask you this, and this kind 20 of gets to the merits of the argument, which I 21 don't really want to discuss right now, but do you 22 really need the defense lawyers' correspondence or 23 statements to the government attorneys in proving 24 up whether or not the government violated the 25 Victims' Rights Act, assuming I'm going to find Page: 31 EFTA01070638 sor & Associates Rcro,,,,, z and Ins•c•ip•int. Ire 1 that it's not -- it doesn't start from the point of 2 indictment; the rights are triggered earlier than 3 that? Don't you have enough information, without 4 their comments in there, trial strategies that may 5 have been revealed to the government -- it is 6 really the government's actions or inactions that 7 you're complaining about, not Epstein's lawyers' 8 actions or inactions. 9 MR. EDWARDS: We have a lot of information but 10 some of the information that we have are clearly 11 responses by Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and the U.S. 12 Attorney at the time, that is responding back to 13 some letters or correspondence saying, I understand 14 that you're urging us not to tell the victims 15 certain information, but here's our problem with 16 that, and there's a back and forth. And we can 17 never gain the context of how it all came about and 18 the rights were violated. 19 We additionally believe that this will go to 20 the heart of the relief or remedy that we are able 21 to seek when we learn the whole puzzle as to how 22 this whole thing went on behind the victims' backs, 23 how deliberate it was and which parties initiated 24 it or caused the rights that we've claimed were 25 violated to be violated. Page: 32 EFTA01070639 sor & Associates Repo,,,,, z and 113••••Ir'ilt. if f 1 THE COURT: Well, again, this is getting more 2 to the merits. But it's the government's either 3 actions or inactions that are at issue here and not 4 what Mr. Epstein or any of his lawyers may have 5 done either to induce or encourage or suggest that 6 the -- again, hypothetically, that they violated 7 the victims' rights under the Act. So aren't you 8 really focusing on what the government did or 9 didn't do regardless of what Mr. Epstein may have 10 done, or his lawyers? Is that really relevant? 11 MR. EDWARDS: To prove violation, yes. But 12 the scope of the remedy or relief that we are able 13 to seek, if it is ultimately to invalidate this 14 contract between the government and Mr. Epstein, 15 and it is ultimately going to be detrimental at all 16 to Mr. Epstein, then his deliberateness in the 17 insistence that the rights of these victims were 18 violated is going to be very important when we 19 brief the issue on remedy and relief. 20 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I want to 21 see if the government has anything to say before I 22 hear back from Mr. Black. 23 Mr. Lee, did you have anything to add on this? 24 I'd be curious to know the government's position 25 regarding Mr. Black's assertion that any plea Page: 33 EFTA01070640 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, z and 113••Clr'ilt, NC 1 negotiations, statements made during the course of 2 plea negotiations, are somehow privileged and 3 protected and therefore can't be disclosed or 4 disseminated. 5 MR. LEE: Your Honor, on that particular issue 6 I am going to defer to my colleague, Ms. Villafana, 7 but I would like to note -- to invite the Court's 8 attention, in response to their motion to use 9 correspondence and to unseal, we did raise the 6(e) 10 issue and we also raised a due process issue about 11 requiring the government to make a factual 12 assertion that somebody was guilty of a certain 13 crime without even being charged with a crime. 14 That was raised independently of what Mr. Black was 15 asserting. So we did raise that. 16 THE COURT: Okay. I'm not sure how that -- 17 explain to me how those tie together. Your 18 statement that -- the government asserting someone 19 may have been guilty of a crime might be a due 20 process violation, how does that relate to 21 statements made by the defense to you in the course 22 of plea negotiations? 23 MR. LEE: That's actually a separate issue 24 that was subsumed within the motion, Your Honor. 25 The motion that they filed was a motion to unseal Page: 34 EFTA01070641 sor & Associates It, portant anJ I ras•cip.int. It c 1 correspondence and to file -- unseal pleadings and 2 use correspondence in order to prove violations of 3 the CVRA. Included in that were a number of 4 factual assertions that the petitioners claimed 5 that we are obligated to agree or disagree with in 6 terms of presenting that issue for the Court to 7 resolve. And some of those factual assertions that 8 they suggested were true involved essentially 9 assertions that Mr. Epstein was guilty of various 10 crimes, crimes that he was not charged with. 11 And so we noted that would be a violation of 12 due process principles to name somebody in such a 13 fashion or to agree to an assertion, which 14 basically becomes our assertion. And secondly, we 15 also mentioned the 6(e) issue in so far as some of 16 these emails that were generated that touched upon 17 matters occurring before the grand jury. That was 18 in that motion regarding -- motion to unseal and 19 use correspondence. If I could defer to my 20 colleague to address the issue about the philosophy 21 about the plea negotiations? 22 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 23 MR. LEE: Thank you, Your Honor. 24 MS. VILLAFANA: Thank you, Your Honor. I'm 25 not certain that this was raised in the pleadings Page: 35 EFTA01070642 sor & Associates Rape,,,,, a and Iras•cir—,,•, lie 1 so this is not something that I was necessarily 2 prepared to address. 3 THE COURT: Well, if you're not prepared to 4 address it, then I don't want to put you on the 5 spot and bind you to anything you might say here, 6 if you want some time to consider it. I am really 7 going to have to look into this issue because I 8 took it as a new a new angle. 9 MS. VILLAFANA: I think I would prefer to look 10 into it a little bit and respond in writing, if 11 that's all right with Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: All right. 13 MS. VILLAFANA: Thank you. 14 THE COURT: Mr. Black, did you want to say 15 anything else? 16 MR. BLACK: Yes, Your Honor. At the beginning 17 of their argument, the plaintiff tells you they do 18 not want to use the statements in any way against 19 Mr. Epstein. At the end of the argument, they say 20 they want to use the statements as a remedy to 21 vacate the non-prosecution agreement and try to 22 have him sentenced to a longer sentence, I assume. 23 Mr. Edwards has said that in previous times before 24 this court. I think that's more than sufficient to 25 meet the standard that they intend to use these 410 Page: 36 EFTA01070643 * sor & Associates Itrpotang an Trinctiptios, In. 1 materials against Mr. Epstein to his detriment. 2 THE COURT: All right. 3 MR. BLACK: Thank you, sir. 4 THE COURT: That's a Mr. Epstein argument as 5 opposed to a Roy Black attorney argument? 6 MR. BLACK: It -- hopefully, they can't use 7 those statements against me but they certainly want 8 to use it against the client. And when we wrote 9 the letters, we are acting for the client. 10 And here is the problem, Your Honor, just to 11 tell you practically what it's like out in the 12 field practicing criminal law: If we believe that 13 our statements in any way during this plea 14 bargaining process would end up coming back to 15 damage our clients in some way, why would we do 16 this? Why would we go through this whole process 17 of sending these briefs and letters and 18 interpretations of the law and discussions of 19 various offenses and how things could be arranged 20 and the discretion between the federal and the 21 state government and all those kind of things, even 22 discussing proposed charges and all of that, why 23 would we ever engage in that if we ever thought 24 these things could come back to bite our clients? 25 All we're going to do here is going to, for no Page: 37 EFTA01070644 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, z and Irl•••••Iri.11. Irc 1 good reason, put a damper on the ability of lawyers 2 to negotiate and resolve criminal cases and I 3 believe that is against the policy of these courts, 4 and our system of justice. 5 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Black. 6 I'm going to reserve ruling. I guess I'm going to 7 ask the government, or both sides to -- Mr. Black, 8 did you want to -- an opportunity to further 9 develop this privilege argument on plea 10 negotiations in writing? 11 MR. BLACK: Yes, sir. I would also ask for 12 whatever time you give the government. I'll make 13 another submission. 14 THE COURT: Why don't you make an initial 15 submission and then let the other side, both -- the 16 other parties respond to that. 17 MR. BLACK: That's fair enough, Your Honor. 18 THE COURT: How much time do you want to do 19 that? 20 MR. BLACK: Two weeks? 21 THE COURT: That's fine. 22 MR. BLACK: Thank you. 23 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Black. 24 How much time did you want, Ms. Villafana, or 25 Mr. Edwards, to respond to whatever Mr. Black Page: 38 EFTA01070645 sor & Associates Rrpittttt z and iflt•Clr , i111. Ire 1 submits? 2 MR. EDWARDS: Two weeks as well, Your Honor. 3 MS. VILLAFANA: Two weeks is fine. 4 MR. LEE: Two weeks would be fine, Your Honor. 5 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, we would ask that we 6 be able to reply after the government? 7 THE COURT: Okay. So you want two weeks after 8 Mr. Black and then after the government responds? 9 MR. EDWARDS: One week would be fine. 10 THE COURT: After? 11 MR. EDWARDS: The government responds. 12 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Black, two weeks for 13 the government and a week for you? 14 MR. EDWARDS: Sounds great. 15 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Black, are you going to 16 want to file a reply or are you going to wait and 17 see? 18 MR. BLACK: I'll see. Why don't you give us 19 three days for a reply. 20 THE COURT: Okay. How about a week, all 21 right? 22 MR. BLACK: Thank you. 23 THE COURT: All right. Let's talk about some 24 of these other procedural motions that don't delve 25 into the real merits. Let's talk about the Page: 39 EFTA01070646 sor & Associates Rcro,,,,, z and 113••••Ir'ilt. if f 1 plaintiffs' motion to have their facts accepted 2 because of the government's failure to contest any 3 of the facts. Who's going to argue that? 4 Mr. Edwards? 5 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: All right. Now, let me kind of 7 just start off and try and focus the inquiry here. 8 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. 9 THE COURT: I read your motion. The motion 10 you filed, the ultimate motion on whether or not 11 there's been a violation of your clients' rights, 12 it's not labeled a summary judgment motion. It's 13 not sworn to. It doesn't have any affidavits. It 14 doesn't -- no depositions, request for admissions, 15 nothing that you would ordinarily rely upon in the 16 context of a case dispositive motion. As far as I 17 know, there's been no attempt to conduct discovery; 18 no request for admissions; no document production; 19 nothing in the ordinary -- in an ordinary civil 20 case that would be done in order to get the other 21 side to admit to certain facts. 22 It seems like you're saying, well, we've 23 talked to them back and forth. We've asked them to 24 admit things. They haven't admitted anything. 25 They refused or we can't come to some agreement, so Page: 40 EFTA01070647 sor & Associates Repo,,,,, z and tras•c•op.,,ot. Ira 1 admit everything we say in our motion and use it 2 against them. How does that work when there seems 3 to me, whether you consider this an aspect of an 4 offshoot of a criminal case or a separate civil 5 case, that there is a means or a method by which 6 you could have, if you wanted to, asked for the 7 opportunity to conduct discovery or send out 8 discovery requests and get them to either admit or 9 deny certain things? 10 Can you just negotiate, they say, I'm sorry, 11 we're not admitting anything, and come into court 12 and say, we tried; they won't admit anything, so 13 now you've got to -- everything is deemed admitted 14 against them? I mean, how does that work? 15 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, let me confer with 16 co-counsel for one second because I believe there 17 was some attempt to do some discovery. 18 We made an initial disclosure under Rule 26, 19 and the response back that we got from the 20 government was that this is not a civil case 21 because the Crime Victims' Rights Act is not a 22 civil case. And we said, okay, well, then we get 23 certain information from you if it's a criminal 24 case. And they said, well, if it's a criminal 25 case, it's United States versus somebody else. So Page: 41 EFTA01070648 sor & Associates Rape,,,,, z and frar•c•ip.int. lie 1 it's not a criminal case. So we are kind of stuck 2 in this middle ground and we need -- similar to a 3 summary judgment motion, we need an ultimate 4 finding on a legal issue, which is a finding of 5 violation of the Act. So we've been kind of stuck 6 in limbo not knowing what's really available to us 7 in terms of how we go about getting discovery. 8 So we did negotiate with them for a long time 9 over facts, and they finally said, all the facts 10 are irrelevant. And if they're irrelevant, then 11 what's the harm in accepting them as true? And if 12 they want to insert the one fact that they believe 13 is relevant, Jeffrey Epstein was not indicted, then 14 we agree. 15 THE COURT: Well, I presume their position is, 16 the rights under the Act don't kick in or aren't 17 triggered until there's an indictment, and if I 18 accept that proposition then it doesn't make any 19 difference what the facts are. But if I don't 20 accept that proposition, then I have a feeling 21 they're going to say that all the facts do make a 22 difference. I don't want to speak for them but I 23 presume that's going to be their approach. 24 MR. EDWARDS: Well, there -- 25 THE COURT: If I rule against them on the Page: 42 EFTA01070649 * sor & Associates Itrpoting and Trinctiptin, In. 1 indictment is the triggering event, they're going 2 to want to contest a lot of these facts. 3 MR. EDWARDS: Well, there are certain 4 undeniable facts that are in the record that they 5 will not contest, which based on those facts alone 6 the -- the finding of a violation, we could reach 7 that decision and it would be ripe for that 8 finding. It's not ripe until we have all of the 9 circumstances and all of the facts. But just given 10 those -- the information that we have in the 11 record, such as when the non-prosecution agreement 12 was signed, the confidentiality provision, when the 13 letters were sent to the clients, when the plea 14 negotiation went down, the fact that it was a year 15 after the non-prosecution agreement that disposed 16 of the clients' rights before the clients knew 17 about the non-prosecution agreement and were 18 receiving letters telling them to be patient, this 19 is a long process, after their rights were already 20 gone, is enough. And those are not things that are 21 being contested. 22 So we could at least have had a meaningful 23 discussion as to which of these other facts, in 24 addition to the fact that Mr. Epstein was not 25 indicted, that they would agree upon. And if Page: 43 EFTA01070650 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, z and fras•c•ip.int. Irc 1 they're saying that it's irrelevant, it goes back 2 to my original argument, what's the harm then? We 3 can get all the way to making the decisions if we 4 have a bunch of -- and Your Honor can make the 5 legal determination what weight to give various 6 facts, whether they're relevant or not relevant. 7 THE COURT: But that's assuming they're all 8 true for purposes of the proceeding. I guess my 9 question to you is: If you are uncertain or the 10 government is uncertain as to what kind of a case 11 this is, is it an offshoot of a or ancillary to 12 a criminal case or is it a separate and independent 13 civil case or some hybrid, and you wanted to get 14 them to admit certain facts, you could have filed a 15 motion and asked for some assistance from me and 16 said, hey, this is what we're trying to accomplish. 17 They won't cooperate. Can we employ some discovery 18 mechanisms in order to limit or narrow the disputed 19 issues? 20 I think whether it's criminal or civil, I 21 probably would have discretion to say, engage in 22 some discovery if that's going to simplify things 23 or bring this to a head. But you just filed a 24 motion and say, they're stuck with everything we 25 say in our motion. Page: 44 EFTA01070651 sor & Associates Itrporitaz and Tra••••ipnot. If c 1 MR. EDWARDS: Well, we believe that this did 2 fall under local Rule 7.5, and assuming that it 3 does, then any -- any facts that are uncontroverted 4 would be deemed admitted and accepted as true. 5 THE COURT: So you're saying this is a summary 6 judgment motion? 7 MR. EDWARDS: Yes. 8 THE COURT: You didn't call it a summary 9 judgment motion. 10 MR. EDWARDS: I understand. 11 THE COURT: You didn't file -- you didn't file 12 a statement of undisputed facts. 13 MR. EDWARDS: We did file a statement of 14 undisputed facts. We filed 53 undisputed facts. 15 THE COURT: You did? 16 MR. EDWARDS: We filed within our motion 17 for finding violations of the Crime Victims' Rights 18 Act, we filed 53 undisputed facts and attached, as 19 exhibits, A through K. 20 THE COURT: Okay. I see. Let me go to that 21 section. Okay. 22 MR. EDWARDS: Various pieces of the record. 23 And we have agreed with the government that we 24 would agree to that additional fact that 25 Mr. Epstein was not indicted, and then we would Page: 45 EFTA01070652 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, z and 1ras•c•prime. if f 1 start with various correspondence indicating that 2 there was a 53-page indictment prepared against him 3 and move on all the way through the plea agreement 4 so that we could reach the determination on the 5 violation. 6 THE COURT: All right. Well, I don't think I 7 can just accept your version of the facts, some of 8 which are not facts but are opinions and 9 conclusions, just because the government didn't 10 choose to sit down and work out an agreement with 11 you. I think there are other ways of getting to 12 the point where you want to get. I think a 13 discovery process is probably the -- and you didn't 14 label it a motion for summary judgment. It's kind 15 of -- so I don't think they were on notice that you 16 were intending to consider this a summary judgment 17 motion and therefore had to respond under the local 18 civil rule and file their statement of disputed 19 material facts. 20 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. I could be incorrect but 21 I believe in their response that they referred to 22 it as a summary judgment motion. 23 THE COURT: All right. 24 MR. EDWARDS: But I could be wrong on that. 25 Okay. Page: 46 EFTA01070653 sor & Associates Repo,,,,, z and 1raa•cop•,,,,, cc 1 THE COURT: I'm going to deny that motion. 2 Okay. I think there's another way of trying to get 3 these facts narrowed and we can talk about how to 4 do that after. 5 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. In terms of the motion 6 for finding a violation, is at least the 7 information that is already in the record and is 8 stipulated to, meaning the exhibits that both 9 parties agree were exhibits, is that something that 10 we are going to be permitted to rely upon for that 11 motion? 12 THE COURT: Well, let's wait until we get to 13 that motion and then we'll talk about it. 14 MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: Okay. How about the motion for 16 the order directing the United States Attorney's 17 Office not to withhold relevant evidence, who wants 18 to talk about that? Mr. Cassell. 19 MR. CASSELL: Good afternoon, Your Honor. As 20 the Court is aware, we've been trying to sort 21 through some of these issues. The Court, I guess, 22 is wondering about some of these things, and we've 23 been wondering as well. The one thing we think is 24 very clear is that the United States cannot sit on 25 information that's highly relevant to the Page: 47 EFTA01070654 sor & Associates Rrpocing and Trincriptin, In. 1 plaintiffs' claims. 2 We've repeatedly asked the United States for 3 information that would support our claim both that 4 there were substantive violations of the Crime 5 Victims' Rights Act and that the appropriate remedy 6 for this violation would be setting aside the 7 non-prosecution agreement. We've offered to 8 provide them very narrow and specific documents 9 that we're looking for. And in response, the 10 United States Attorney's Office has taken the 11 position that it can and will withhold this 12 relevant and useful information from the victims. 13 So we think the legal issue is starkly present: 14 Can the United States withhold information from the 15 victims that will help them establish a violation 16 of congressionally-mandated crime victims' rights? 17 And we submit that the answer to that question must 18 be, no, for three reasons. 19 THE COURT: Why isn't this, again, sort of a 20 discovery issue? We go through a discovery process 21 and you submit specific requests for information. 22 They either produce it or object to it, and if 23 there's an objection and they say, we're not going 24 to produce it, we have a hearing on whether or not 25 it should be turned over. Page: 48 EFTA01070655 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, z and fras•c•ip.int. II c 1 MR. CASSELL: So that is our third argument. 2 Let me jump right to that. The third argument we 3 have made in our brief is that this is a civil case 4 and so we should proceed under the ordinary civil 5 rules. As Your Honor is well aware, the first step 6 in the civil rules is to make initial disclosures. 7 So we made all of our initial disclosures under 8 Rule 26 and we asked the government then to make 9 theirs. They refused. They said, sorry, we're not 10 going to make any disclosures. So we were stopped 11 at first base. We can't, of course, move to 12 request for depositions, request for admissions 13 because we haven't even had the initial disclosures 14 that Rule 26 envisions. So basically -- 15 THE COURT: But you could have asked me to 16 intervene and make some preliminary determinations 17 as to who's right or wrong about that process. 18 MR. CASSELL: And that's what we tried to do 19 with this motion. We said there should be a motion 20 for them, and we styled it, not to withhold 21 evidence. And, of course, our third argument was 22 that the civil rules apply and they should -- let 23 me make clear, we're not trying to suggest that 24 we're afraid of the civil rules. To the contrary, 25 if the Court were to enter an order in a few Page: 49 EFTA01070656 sor & Associates Reportint anJ Iras•c•ip.,,,t. NC 1 minutes saying the civil rules apply, simply 2 proceed under the civil rules, we would be ecstatic 3 about that. That would let us get to the bottom of 4 this case and we would be happy to move forward on 5 an expedited basis to produce some requests for 6 admissions, maybe take a few depositions and do the 7 ordinary thing that civil rules -- the civil rules 8 require. 9 So we're certainly not opposed to that in any 10 way. In fact, we proposed that to the government; 11 again, only to be blocked at square one, to even go 12 down that path. So we're happy to go down that 13 path. We hope that the Court would go that way. 14 But there's one -- there are a couple of other 15 things that I think above and beyond the ordinary 16 civil rules that factor in here that are highly 17 relevant. This is not an ordinary civil case where 18 the victims and the government are supposed to be 19 adversaries, where both sides duke it out. To the 20 contrary, Congress has passed a specific provision 21 that mandates that the government must use its best 22 efforts to afford victims their rights. That best 23 efforts clause then suggests that, well, the 24 government isn't entitled to try to conceal things 25 and withhold them. They have to undertake their Page: 50 EFTA01070657 * sor & Associates Rrpotion and Irl. •trItle, In, 1 own affirmative search for information and provide 2 it to us. 3 And here again, we think this is a very simple 4 task. They've never argued that this is 5 burdensome. They've never argued, we don't know 6 what you're looking for. To the contrary, they 7 have said, we have information and we're simply not 8 going to produce it to you. That is simply not 9 consistent with the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 10 which obligates them to use their best efforts to 11 help us. You shouldn't view this as an adversarial 12 position. And this is, again, where we have come 13 to the Court to request your assistance. We would 14 like an order that says to the government, come on, 15 comply with the Crime Victims' Rights Act; use your 16 best efforts to assist the victims to receive the 17 information that they're looking for. 18 And the last argument we make is, remember 19 what the government has already done for the sex 20 offender in this case. Our understanding is they 21 have provided hundreds of pages of information to a 22 child molester, but we're simply asking for a few 23 documents that will now help us make our claim that 24 there have been violations of the Crime Victims' 25 Rights Act and that the appropriate remedy for that Page: 51 EFTA01070658 sor & Associates Rapittttt z and 113••••Ir'ilt. if f 1 is setting aside the non-prosecution agreement. 2 We're entitled to that information no less than the 3 defense was entitled to that information as a 4 matter of fairness. 5 Now, they say fairness, due process, that's 6 under the Constitution. We are not raising a 7 constitutional claim. We are raising a statutory 8 claim. The Crime Victims' Rights Act says that 9 victims of crime must be treated with fairness. 10 And, again, we think this is a very simple and very 11 stark question that the Court can ask and should 12 ask the government: How is it treating the victims 13 with fairness to allow you, the government, to 14 withhold information that will permit them to show, 15 first, that there's been a violation of the Crime 16 Victims' Rights Act and, secondly, that the 17 appropriate remedy is the remedy they're seeking to 18 set aside the non-prosecution agreement? 19 And, in fact, the cases that they cite even 20 say that the victims should go and seek the 21 assistance of the government when they run into 22 situations where their rights are being violated. 23 The very first case they cite, U.S. v. Rubin, says 24 that the victims should go about conferring with 25 the government if they're trying to obtain Page: 52 EFTA01070659 sor & Associates Rap.,,,,, z and 1ras•c•ip.,,rt. It r 1 information since, after all, it's the government 2 who is supposed to be the ally of the victims in 3 this process, not the adversaries. 4 And so for all of those reasons, the 5 government's best efforts and obligations, our 6 right to be treated with fairness, and the fact 7 that this is a civil case and the ordinary civil 8 rules apply, for all of those reasons, Your Honor, 9 we think they are not entitled to withhold 10 information from us that they well know is very 11 helpful to us, both on the liability phase of this 12 case and the ultimate remedy phase of this case. 13 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 14 Mr. Lee. 15 MR. LEE: Thank you, Your Honor. May it 16 please the Court. Let me address the first issue 17 about the initial disclosures that the petitioners 18 claim. Those initial disclosures were given to the 19 government in March of 2011, probably about two 20 weeks before they filed their series of four 21 motions. This lawsuit commenced in July of 2008. 22 So while these are disclosures, they certainly were 23 initial disclosures which are typically done within 24 a few weeks of the commencement of the lawsuit. 25 Your Honor, this is a case that is really kind Page: 53 EFTA01070660 sor & Associates Ripon,. a and tras•cripitoo. li f 1 of a hybrid. It's not a criminal case in the sense 2 that nobody is being charged with a crime. Nobody 3 is in jeopardy of going to jail. But it's not 4 completely a civil case, either. I believe that 5 the CVRA intended that most of these actions where 6 individual victims seek to have their rights 7 enforced, they are usually done as an ancillary 8 proceeding to an extant criminal proceeding. 9 In such proceedings, an individual victim 10 would not necessarily have discovery rights that 11 one would have under the Federal Rules of Civil 12 Procedure. Not only that, not every civil action 13 comes with it rights to conduct full discovery. If 14 somebody files an agency APA action, Administrative 15 Procedures Act, seeking to get judicial review of 16 an agency action, those are record reviews and 17 you're not entitled to discovery. 18 If somebody files a habeas, in order to get 19 discovery in a habeas proceeding there must be a 20 court order. And we believe that just because this 21 is a civil action in the sense that it's not a 22 criminal action, that they're not entitled to 23 discovery. It can only be done pursuant to an 24 order of this court. 25 THE COURT: All right. Well, do you believe I Page: 54 EFTA01070661 * sor & Associates Rrpotioat and I T i• • og a OS. III.. 1 don't have the discretion or do you believe or 2 agree that regardless of whether it's an ancillary 3 action to a criminal proceeding or it's a separate 4 and independent civil proceeding, or it's some 5 hybrid, wouldn't I have discretion to order 6 discovery if I believed it was appropriate? 7 MR. LEE: Yes, you would, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 MR. LEE: Even in a habeas, the court has 10 broad discretion. Your Honor, I would note for 11 this, we believe that the first issue the Court 12 must resolve is whether or not any legal rights 13 under 3771(a)(1) through (8) accrued prior to the 14 filing of a charge in the Southern District of 15 Florida against Mr. Epstein. That can be resolved. 16 That's a statutory interpretation question. It is 17 a legal question. 18 The only predicate fact that is necessary for 19 the Court to engage in this analysis is to have -- 20 to know that there was no charge filed against 21 Mr. Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. 22 There's no dispute as to that. I mean, for that 23 very reason, we believe that the discovery that the 24 petitioners claim that they need is unnecessary. 25 THE COURT: Well, I agree if I agree with you, Page: 55 EFTA01070662 sor & Associates Rep.ttttt z and 1r3s•c•ip.,,,t. lir 1 then that's the end of the case. But if I don't 2 agree with you, I have to have some way of dealing 3 with the issue of whether or not the plaintiffs' 4 rights were violated and how we're going to come to 5 a resolution of that. So I'm now in the posture 6 of -- on the assumption, hypothetically, that I 7 disagree with your legal position and feel that 8 there is an issue of fact as to whether or not the 9 rights were violated and how are we going to 10 resolve that factual issue. 11 MR. LEE: Your Honor, the Court would at that 12 point have the discretion, if there was good cause 13 shown and the Court believed it necessary to the 14 resolution of the dispute, to allow discovery. 15 THE COURT: All right. And I guess this is 16 over and above just discovery obligations. The 17 plaintiffs are claiming that you have some 18 statutory obligation over and above a discovery 19 obligation to produce information that would be 20 what's in your possession, out of treating them 21 fair under the statute. What's your position on 22 that? 23 MR. LEE: We respectfully disagree. They cite 24 Brady v. Maryland, which, of course, pertains to a 25 criminal case. Brady v. Maryland is based on the Page: 56 EFTA01070663 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, z and fras•c•ip.,,,t. Ira 1 due process clause, because if the government is 2 seeking to deprive somebody of their life, liberty 3 or property, they have to accord them the process 4 that is due. The process that is due to a criminal 5 defendant is information that is exculpatory that 6 is in the hands of the government. This is not a 7 criminal case. 8 In order to invoke the due process clause, 9 they have to establish that there's a protected 10 life, liberty or property interest, outside of 11 Brady versus Maryland. So in this case, they would 12 have to demonstrate that some liberty or property 13 interest is in jeopardy and the government is 14 seeking to take it away from them and they are 15 accorded a certain amount of process. In their 16 view, that process is the right to have access to 17 this information. 18 There is no protected liberty or property 19 interest in the CVRA. And in so far as the right 20 that they invoke under 3771(a)(8) about the right 21 to be treated with fairness, there's no authority 22 that fairness includes a discovery right to compel 23 the government to produce information that might be 24 of assistance to a victim in prosecuting his or her 25 claim that their rights were violated. Thank you, Page: 57 EFTA01070664 * sor & Associates Itrpoling and Trinctiption. In. 1 Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Thank you. 3 MR. CASSELL: Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Lee 4 first talks about the timing of this case and the 5 time line. Let me just touch on two things that I 6 think are highly relevant. Back in July of 2008, 7 when this case first began, you recall that 8 Mr. Edwards and Mr. Lee said, Your Honor, we think 9 we can work out a set of facts so that you can then 10 decide the case. That was the agreement of Mr. Lee 11 and Mr. Edwards. And so I assisted Mr. Edwards and 12 worked with Mr. Lee to begin working on the facts, 13 and after a few weeks we heard back from the 14 government, we've changed our mind; we no longer 15 want to work with you on the facts. 16 So at that point, as you know, we began 17 working on the civil cases, got some additional 18 information, prepared. And I have to confess maybe 19 we didn't style it properly. Maybe we should have 20 put "summary judgment" on it or something else. We 21 weren't quite sure. But we put together 53 facts 22 and we sent them to the government before we ever 23 presented them to you and said, here are the facts. 24 We would like to work with you because we don't 25 want to get in a squabble in front of the judge Page: 58 EFTA01070665 1 ifr sor & Associates nepo,,,,, z •nd franc-opnory. Ire iR when we can work together. And Mr. Lee sent me an 2 email saying, we will work with you and agree to 3 any of the facts that we think are true. 4 So we thought, great, we will move forward 5 with that process. And then in, I believe it was 6 February of this year, we then got another about 7 face from the government: No, we've changed our 8 mind; we're not going to work with you to stipulate 9 facts. And at that point, we were then forced to 10 file this motion. 11 Now, Mr. Lee keeps calling it a discovery 12 motion. I don't think that's the right term. 13 Discovery motion means we would be fishing around 14 trying to find something that's useful. We see the 15 principle at stake here as being something quite 16 different. The government admits -- and you notice 17 Mr. Lee didn't deny this -- that they have 18 information that they know will be helpful to us. 19 We're asking you to order them to produce it to us. 20 That's not discovery, let's fish around and see 21 what we can find. 22 THE COURT: What does that mean? I guess, are 23 you trying -- it seems like it's a Brady concept. 24 MR. CASSELL: Exactly. 25 THE COURT: So they're supposed to, in good Page: 59 EFTA01070666 * sor & Associates arporing and Trinctiption, In. 1 faith, I presume, look through their files and 2 decide, you know, this looks like something that 3 would be helpful to the plaintiffs to prove that we 4 violated their rights, so here it is. 5 MR. CASSELL: Exactly. And let me just 6 explain why -- and notice that the government has 7 never raised the point that this is burdensome; we 8 can't figure it out; oh, gosh, there are so many 9 files we don't know what to look at. And let me 10 explain to you why I think they are not making that 11 representation. We went to the U.S. Attorney for 12 the Southern District of Florida in December and 13 raised a number of questions about this case. At 14 that point, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern 15 District of Florida referred the matter to OPR, the 16 Office of Professional Responsibility in 17 Washington, DC, for an investigation. 18 It's our understanding that for about five 19 months there was an inquiry or an investigation 20 into the nature of this case. And then in May, we 21 received a letter that said, well, all these issues 22 are being litigated in front of the court so we're 23 not going to proceed any further with the 24 investigation, or the inquiry, whatever you want to 25 call it. Page: 60 EFTA01070667 sor & Associates Repottttt z and 113••Clr'411. if f 1 We think there is a collection of materials, 2 sealed and wrapped in a ribbon, that they could 3 simply hand to us right now that would have 4 basically 90 percent of all the relevant 5 information in the case. We further believe that 6 they know darn well that that information is very, 7 very helpful for us in proving that there were 8 deliberate violations of the Crime Victims' Rights 9 Act; second, that Mr. Epstein was involved in 10 orchestrating those violations; and, third, that 11 that would show that the appropriate remedy in this 12 case is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement 13 because it is an illegal agreement. And yet 14 they're refusing to provide that to us. 15 What is the basis that they say you shouldn't 16 order that information provided to us? They say, 17 well, you just need one fact to decide this case. 18 As the Court, I think, is aware and we may be 19 getting into shortly, when you look at the case 20 laws you can't decide an issue like this based on 21 just one fact. You have to have some context. 22 Let me give you an example of one additional 23 fact that we think is highly relevant. The 24 government prepared, as we understand it, a 53-page 25 indictment against Epstein and presented that to Page: 61 EFTA01070668 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, a and Irpo•:-Ir•,,,,, lc e 1 the defense attorneys. Well, we think that that is 2 highly relevant information showing that they 3 mistreated the victims in this case. Why didn't 4 they share that with the victims? Why didn't they 5 just share the discussions about that with the 6 victims? They were obligated to do so. We think 7 that's part of the context that the Court will 8 need. 9 Now, you notice what Mr. -- what Mr. Lee did 10 as well. He talks about the Brady principle. 11 Let's think about what the Brady principle is and 12 why it's so important in this case. The Brady 13 principle is basically that the government wins 14 when justice is done. And the government is asking 15 you to take the position that even though it has 16 information that's highly relevant to the crime 17 victims, there's no one that can force them to turn 18 it over to us. That is not justice. That is 19 not -- 20 THE COURT: I don't think -- I think Mr. Lee 21 acknowledged that if I ordered discovery that they 22 would be ordered to comply with -- 23 MR. CASSELL: Right. 24 THE COURT: -- discovery requests. 25 MR. CASSELL: Well, maybe then -- maybe this Page: 62 EFTA01070669 sor & Associates Rcpe,,,,, z and fra•••••p•mt. II c 1 is, in essence, an unopposed motion. I mean, he 2 said you have discretion to do it. And the only 3 argument I heard him make against you exercising 4 your discretion to do this is, Judge, you only need 5 one fact. So I assume that if you disagree with 6 Mr. Lee on that, that at that point I haven't heard 7 any arguments from the government, either in the 8 written pleadings they have filed or here this 9 afternoon, that would suggest you shouldn't 10 exercise your discretion to, first of all, order 11 them to produce the information that we think that 12 they have that is highly relevant to us and, 13 second, allow us to do some discovery, take some 14 depositions, get some requests for admissions, get 15 some document production, which we would ordinarily 16 get in a civil case. 17 The other thing Mr. Lee said is, they're not 18 being deprived of any property here. The crime 19 victims in this case, Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe 20 No. 2 have made a very powerful case that they are 21 being deprived of congressionally-mandated rights: 22 The right to confer with prosecutors; the right to 23 be treated with fairness; and the right to accurate 24 notice of court proceedings. That's the 25 deprivation that's at issue. And as a result, it Page: 63 EFTA01070670 4(t sor & Associates Repo,,,,, . and 1ras•cor ,,,,, Ire 3in 1 is only fair, as it would be if this were under a 2 due process situation, that they receive relevant 3 information that the government has. And so for 4 all of those reasons, we would ask you to order the 5 government to produce information and allow us to 6 do some discovery as well. 7 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I think 8 this is somewhat related to what we've been talking 9 about, and this is the plaintiffs' motion to use 10 correspondence to prove violations under the Crime 11 Victims' Rights Act and to have unsealed -- have 12 the unredacted pleadings unsealed. Have we already 13 talked about this or is there some -- 14 MR. CASSELL: I think this one is unopposed. 15 Maybe you can just grant at least the first part of 16 it, to use correspondence. 17 THE COURT: Well, exactly what are we talking 18 about, I guess? I need to have a better 19 understanding. What has been redacted and -- well, 20 I guess, what is -- it is unredacted, material 21 that's not redacted. 22 MR. CASSELL: We have material that was 23 provided to us that was, for example, Mr. Lee or 24 some of the other attorneys in the U.S. Attorney's 25 Office talking about the plea discussion. We have Page: 64 EFTA01070671 sor & Associates Rap.,,,,, [ and franc -opting. Ire 1 that information right now. 2 THE COURT: And that's the government's side 3 of the discussion? 4 MR. CASSELL: That's the government's side. 5 THE COURT: Okay. 6 MR. CASSELL: And we simply want to use that. 7 The government does not oppose that motion. We 8 were obligated to provide notice to Mr. Epstein, 9 which we did. There was the magistrate judge 10 process. All of the work product and other 11 objections that you've been hearing about today 12 have been overruled. And then the magistrate judge 13 said, simply go to the appropriate authority, which 14 I assume is Your Honor, and have the -- you know, 15 have a decision made about whether that information 16 can be used. 17 THE COURT: Now, is this information -- is any 18 of this information, the unredacted 19 correspondence -- I guess I need to speak to 20 Mr. Black about this. Is any of this information 21 information that you're concerned about, Mr. Black? 22 Or is this information that is not anything that 23 you're concerned about? 24 MR. BLACK: It is none of our information. 25 It's only the government's side of the Page: 65 EFTA01070672 * sor & Associates Itrpoling and Trenctiptios. In. 1 communication, Your Honor. That's what I 2 understand. 3 THE COURT: So you don't have any concern 4 about whether I allow the plaintiffs to use it or 5 whether it's unsealed? 6 MR. BLACK: We have no position on that 7 because that does not implicate our rights. 8 THE COURT: All right. 9 MR. CASSELL: So I think this motion may be 10 unopposed, although the government, I think, is 11 opposing unsealing of the information because they 12 claim some of that is Rule 6(e) grand jury 13 material. 14 I have the same question I think Your Honor 15 does. For the life of me, I can't see how any of 16 the emails we have could be Rule 6(e) material 17 because they've been given to us. They've been 18 given to Mr. Black. And, if so, that can't be 19 confidential grand jury material because it 20 shouldn't have been shared with anyone else. 21 None of the materials talk about what's going 22 on inside the grand jury room, which is what 23 Rule 6(e) covers. So we think any kind of argument 24 that Rule 6(e) is implicated here is just frankly 25 frivolous. Page: 66 EFTA01070673 sor & Associates Repo,,,,, z and tras•c•opniot. cc 1 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Lee, or 2 Ms. Villafana, do you want to be heard on this? 3 MR. LEE: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. Very 4 briefly, we raised two arguments in so far as 5 unredacting these materials. 6(e) -- 6 THE COURT: I don't think -- I don't think 7 anybody is asking that they be unredacted. I think 8 they're just -- they want to use it in the form 9 that they have it right now. 10 MR. LEE: Okay. Let me address the 6(e) 11 issue. As we stated in our pleadings, Your Honor, 12 or our opposition to the motion, 6(e) is not a 13 privilege like the attorney/client privilege or 14 deliberative process that can be waived once the 15 contents of the information that is protected is 16 made known. Somebody can be served with a grand 17 jury subpoena and the press may get ahold of it and 18 say, ah, you're investigating so and so; 19 government, you need to confirm with us whether or 20 not you're investigating so and so. 21 Even though there is an existence of a grand 22 jury subpoena which would seem to indicate that, 23 that doesn't breach, if you will, Rule 6(e) 24 obligations. The government is still obligated to 25 neither confirm nor deny. So just because somebody Page: 67 EFTA01070674 sor & Associates Repo,,,,, z and fras•c•op.,,ot. II c 1 has this information doesn't mean that the 6(e) 2 protections are gone and vitiated. So that's why 3 we believe that this information should not be made 4 public. 5 THE COURT: Well, are you talking about all of 6 it or just a portion of it? 7 MR. LEE: There are certain portions that we 8 redacted. We filed an actual document putting 9 forth what we believe should be redacted; what the 10 petitioners agreed was fine and where the areas of 11 disagreement were. It was color coded. 12 THE COURT: Right. So some of the material 13 the copies I have, I lose the color in them. I 14 just have black. Everything is black. So there's 15 some material that you believe needs to be 16 redacted? 17 MR. LEE: Correct. 18 THE COURT: And others that the plaintiffs say 19 should be unsealed and unredacted? 20 MR. LEE: That's correct, Your Honor. 21 THE COURT: Okay. All right. 22 MR. LEE: Thank you, Your Honor. 23 THE COURT: You're welcome. All right. Let's 24 talk about, I guess, the main issue of this case 25 here. When do the victims' rights start to accrue? Page: 68 EFTA01070675 sor & Associates kerning and Trinctirtnis, In. 1 Who's going to present that argument? 2 Mr. Cassell. 3 MR. CASSELL: Thank you, Your Honor. So I'll 4 address what I think you've called the main event. 5 The question is: When does the Crime Victims' 6 Rights Act begin to apply? The government's 7 position, as I understand it, is that unless it 8 makes the decision to publicly file an indictment, 9 crime victims have no rights in the criminal 10 justice process. That's a very important issue for 11 crime victims' rights in this country, and I think 12 it's a very important question for the way in which 13 this congressional statute is going to be put into 14 effect. 15 The Crime Victims' Rights Act makes it quite 16 clear that it wasn't designed to be so narrowly 17 circumscribed. In fact, the rights apply 18 throughout the criminal justice process. You need 19 go no further than the plain language of the CVRA, 20 which says that there is an obligation of, quote, 21 officers and employees of the Department of 22 Justice, and other departments and agencies of the 23 United States, engaged in -- and here is the 24 important part -- the detection, investigation or 25 prosecution of crime. And those entities are Page: 69 EFTA01070676 sor & Associates Rrpe,,,,, z and tras•c•priot. cc 1 obligated to afford crime victims their rights. 2 If you take the position of the government and 3 accept it, then that language in the CVRA simply 4 because superfluous. It becomes meaningless. It 5 would never apply. Agencies that are involved in 6 the detection and investigation of crime, like the 7 FBI and other agencies, would never have any 8 obligations under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. 9 We have cited that language, as you know. 10 Back in July of 2008, every single pleading we have 11 filed in this case has led with that particular 12 argument. And the government, despite having, I 13 think, by this point, four separate pleadings has 14 never discussed that language with you at all, and 15 we think the answer -- the reason why they are not 16 discussing that language is obvious. They have no 17 answer for that. 18 If they were to look at that language -- if 19 their position were to be accepted, that language 20 would be written out of the statute. But that, of 21 course, is not the only language we rely upon in 22 the CVRA. The CVRA goes on to say that what should 23 victims do if they are asserting rights and, quote, 24 no charges are -- or no prosecution is underway, 25 which is our situation here, no prosecution, at Page: 70 EFTA01070677 * sor & Associates Itrpoiring and Tramiptius, Inc. 1 least federal prosecution, is underway? 2 In that situation, a victim should assert her 3 rights in the district court in which the defendant 4 is being prosecuted, or if no prosecution is 5 underway in the district court, in the district in 6 which the crime occurred. That's here in the 7 Southern District of Florida, which is why we 8 proceeded here. 9 Now, the government says this is a venue 10 provision. True, enough. But venue over what? 11 The theory that we've given you is that that 12 provides venue over cases that are in a 13 pre-indictment situation. The government merely 14 does not have a coherent theory on how that venue 15 provision applies. 16 If you read through the footnotes in their 17 brief, you discover that they say, well, if 18 somebody is arrested, then at that point The Crime 19 Victims' Rights Act is triggered. Of course, that 20 footnote is inconsistent with the entire body of 21 their brief, which says that the triggering event 22 for the Crime Victims' Rights Act is the filing of 23 an indictment. 24 So I'll be interested to hear from Mr. Lee, 25 when he makes his presentation, exactly what point Page: 71 EFTA01070678 * sor & Associates an/mi is and Tonniption, In. 1 in the process do rights apply? Is it the 2 indictment? Is it the arrest? Or is it some 3 earlier point, as we suggest? 4 Now, it's interesting, too, when you look at 5 what Mr. Lee said back on July 11th, 2008, because 6 Your Honor asked the same question that I think 7 you're asking me and the government right now, are 8 there rights that apply under the Crime Victims' 9 Rights Act before the filing an indictment? And 10 the answer that Mr. Lee gave on July 11, 2008, was, 11 yes, there are rights that apply before the 12 indictment. Quoting here: Now, there are certain 13 of eight rights accorded in 3771(a) that could come 14 up before any charges being filed. And he goes on 15 to give the example of the right of a victim to be 16 reasonably protected, and he conceded that those 17 rights would apply before indictment. 18 I think the government, once again, is 19 reversing a position that they took earlier in this 20 litigation because they now find it convenient to 21 do so. 22 The government has also cited remarks from 23 Senator Kyl, saying if you look at Senator Kyl's 24 legislative history you'll see that the Senate 25 didn't want the rights to apply before the Page: 72 EFTA01070679 sor & Associates Rrporing and Tra•ctiphos. Inc. 1 indictment was filed. As you know, just a couple 2 of weeks ago we provided supplemental authority to 3 this court, which was a letter from Senator Kyl to 4 Attorney General Eric Holder sent on June the -- 5 THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure I should rely 6 on his letter. I mean, I think you can rely on the 7 full context of the legislative history and the 8 full -- the complete statement that Senator Kyl 9 made when this was being discussed, but I'm not 10 sure a letter sent years after the fact, which is 11 one person's statement of what he thinks now, I 12 don't think that's -- I wouldn't want to rely on 13 that. 14 MR. CASSELL: In the -- if I could just take a 15 short moment then. Let me explain to you why you 16 should rely on it. The government has said 17 Senator Kyl would want you to rule in their favor 18 in this case because he didn't want the Crime 19 Victims' Rights Act to apply pre-indictment, and 20 now we have a letter from Senator Kyl, just six 21 weeks ago, saying, That is quoting my remarks out 22 of context. We could not have been clearer when we 23 drafted the Act, and he cited the same statutory 24 provisions that I just mentioned to you. And he 25 said, obviously we intended for the Act to apply Page: 73 EFTA01070680 sor & Associates Reportin anJ I ran.. Irma . Irc 1 pre-indictment. 2 So at the very least, I think you have to 3 disregard the government's position that 4 Senator Kyl has certain remarks that they think 5 ought to lead you to conclude that there's no 6 pre-indictment rights under the CVRA. 7 The other point that we would press, of 8 course, is that case law, in our view, all 9 concludes that the Crime Victims' Rights Act 10 applies before indictment. Of course, the lead 11 Court of Appeals case on this is the Fifth Circuit 12 case, In re: Dean. The government -- you've had a 13 chance to read the government's briefing on that. 14 Frankly, I don't think anything they say is 15 persuasive. 16 In re: Dean very specifically holds -- and I'm 17 quoting here -- quote, logically the rights that 18 apply before any prosecution is underway included 19 the CVRA's establishment of the victim's reasonable 20 right to confer with the attorney for the 21 government. That's the Fifth Circuit's holding. 22 That is persuasive authority, we would suggest, and 23 the government has no answer for that. 24 There are a number of district court cases 25 that reach exactly the same conclusion that the Page: 74 EFTA01070681 * sor & Associates growing and Tranctiption, Inc. 1 Crime Victims' Rights Act applies before any 2 indictment is filed. And so for all of those 3 reasons, Your Honor, we would ask you to conclude 4 that the Crime Victims' Rights Act applies before 5 an indictment. 6 THE COURT: I don't know if you're prepared to 7 answer this question or whether you're going to 8 say, well, the facts of this case don't require me 9 to deal with it. But when is the earliest point 10 when these rights trigger? 11 MR. CASSELL: And, you know, Your Honor, we 12 believe that is a very difficult issue that courts 13 will be wrestling with, how far back in the process 14 does it go? And I think you anticipated part of 15 our response, which is, look, there are going to be 16 some line-drawing issues down the road. There are 17 certainly going to be some close-call cases, but we 18 are not anywhere near to a close-call case. 19 We are asking you for a very narrow holding in 20 this case, and we have set forth in our brief five 21 factors that we would ask you to rely upon in this 22 case that will limit your holding to these 23 particular facts and leave for another day some of 24 the more theoretical questions. 25 Here are five factors that we think are Page: 75 EFTA01070682 sor & Associates Repo,,,,. a and fraineriptroa. It f 1 present in this case that make it clear the Crime 2 Victims' Rights Act was triggered, that may cut off 3 some of the more theoretical or preliminary stages 4 that perhaps Your Honor is worried about. 5 The first fact is that prosecutors in this 6 case identified specific federal offenses committed 7 against specific victims, and that's one of the 8 reasons we need the correspondence, to show that 9 that fact exists. 10 Secondly, the prosecutors in this case 11 determined that there was evidence which they could 12 present at trial and prove beyond a reasonable 13 doubt that those crimes had been committed. 14 The third fact is that in this case, the 15 victims were given notices that their rights had 16 attached under the Crime Victims' Right Act. You 17 will recall in our exhibits, several notices that 18 went to both Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 19 saying, you have rights under the Crime Victims' 20 Rights Act. At least in a situation where the 21 government itself has said, we think at this point 22 rights have attached, that's when rights should be 23 deemed to have attached. 24 The fourth fact that's present here is that 25 the prosecutor sat down with defense attorneys to Page: 76 EFTA01070683 sor & Associates Reportin anJ I ranc-irme. It r 1 negotiate a non-prosecution agreement. So let's 2 take a case where the bank robber runs out of the 3 bank and he's on the front steps of the bank, do 4 the rights attach then? Well, no, that's a very 5 preliminary stage. But if they start negotiating 6 with the bank robber's attorney saying, okay, we're 7 looking at filing federal bank robbery charges, 8 we're thinking of filing these counts, we would 9 like to discuss with you plea options, at that 10 point in the process that's when the rights attach. 11 That, by the way, I think is exactly what the 12 Fifth Circuit did in the Dean case. There, the 13 government had sat down with a company that was 14 responsible for some deaths. They had 15 negotiated -- they were contemplating filing 16 specific federal charges, and at that point the 17 Fifth Circuit said the rights attached. 18 And the last point is that there is at least 19 the attachment of crime victims' rights when the 20 government is prepared to execute an agreement that 21 will abolish or extinguish the rights of crime 22 victims, and that's exactly what happened here, of 23 course. There was this non-prosecution agreement 24 that was executed that's then eviscerated any 25 possibility that Jane Doe No. 1 or Jane Doe No. 2 Page: 77 EFTA01070684 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, z and I ray•t•ip.int. Irc 1 would have their day in this federal court and see 2 the child molester that abused them brought to 3 justice. Before that contract could be signed, 4 sealed and delivered, the government had an 5 obligation under the Crime Victims' Rights Act to 6 confer with the victims. So this is a very narrow 7 case. 8 So if you want to ask, you know, the kind of 9 law professor's question, how far back, you know, 10 do you go, I mean, are all five of those necessary, 11 I mean, I think that's an interesting question. I 12 would say, you really probably don't need all five 13 of those to conclude that the Crime Victims' Rights 14 Act applies. But I think at an absolute minimum, 15 when you have the combination of those five 16 factors, as you do in this case, it's quite clear 17 that the Crime Victims' Rights Act applies here. 18 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 19 Mr. Lee, I am -- Mr. Lee, before I hear from 20 you, I want to -- I think I'm going to give the 21 reporter a break because I think she has probably 22 had a hard time keeping up with some of the 23 participants this afternoon. Why don't we take a 24 15-minute break and then we will hear from the 25 government. Page: 78 EFTA01070685 * sor & Associates kiln:Ring and Trincription. In. 1 (Recess.) 2 THE COURT: Please be seated, everyone. 3 All right, Mr. Lee. 4 MR. LEE: Thank you very much, Your Honor. 5 Your Honor, the initial task before this court is 6 to determine the legal issue of when a right would 7 attach under any of the provisions in 3771(a)(1) 8 through (8), and probably the most important and 9 prominent one that the petitioners have alleged is 10 3771(a)(5), which is a reasonable right to confer 11 with the attorney for the government in the case. 12 Initially, this is a statutory interpretation 13 task for the Court and, of course, the Court is 14 guided by the words of the statute, simple enough. 15 And there are various doctrines about plain meaning 16 and the statutes say what they mean and mean what 17 they say, and things like that. 18 Congress provided a very definitive guidepost 19 for courts to interpret the various provisions of 20 the CVRA, and that's contained in Section 21 3771(d)(6). And if I could quote, and it's the 22 last sentence, Your Honor, quote: Nothing in this 23 chapter shall be construed to impair the 24 prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or 25 any officer under his direction, end quote. Page: 79 EFTA01070686 * sor & Associates arpoling and Tronctiptlow, In. 1 So this is a guidepost to courts interpreting 2 the CVRA. If there are two conflicting 3 interpretations, perhaps equally reasonable and 4 plausible under the statute -- under the terms of 5 the reading of the statute, if one impairs the 6 discretion of the Attorney General and one does 7 not, then the one that does not impair the 8 discretion of the Attorney General would be the one 9 that would be correct. 10 THE COURT: Well, why does conferring have 11 anything to do with exercising discretion? You can 12 confer with a victim without infringing on your 13 prosecutorial discretion, can't you? 14 MR. LEE: Yes, Your Honor, but here is what I 15 mean: In terms of construing it to apply at a 16 certain point, the Court needs to be mindful of 17 whether this would impair the prosecutorial 18 discretion of the Attorney General or those acting 19 under him. 20 THE COURT: Well, why would conferring impinge 21 on prosecutorial discretion? I mean, you're saying 22 part of prosecutorial discretion is to decide 23 whether or not to confer? 24 MR. LEE: No. What I'm saying is this: To 25 the extent that the individual is given a right to Page: 80 EFTA01070687 sor & Associates Reportint anJ Iras•cip.int. i I I 1 basically undermine or call into question otherwise 2 lawful prerogatives of the Attorney General in 3 deciding what to charge somebody with, when to 4 charge somebody with this, this would constitute an 5 impairment of the prosecutorial discretion and that 6 would be a construction that would not be favored 7 under this advice. 8 Your Honor, this is particularly compelling in 9 this case, because what we are dealing with here is 10 not an indictment that was ultimately returned or a 11 plea agreement that came before this court. This 12 was a non-prosecution agreement. It was a 13 determination by the United States Attorney to 14 engage in an agreement with Mr. Epstein that in 15 consideration for him doing certain things that he 16 would not be prosecuted in federal court for 17 various things. 18 THE COURT: Well, but I think that we wouldn't 19 be here if your office conferred with the victims, 20 told them what you were contemplating, heard them 21 out, and after hearing them out said, thank you 22 very much for your input; we appreciate your 23 position; we understand you'd rather we prosecute 24 Mr. Epstein federally and send him to prison for 50 25 years, but we, exercising our discretion under Page: 81 EFTA01070688 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, z and 113••4•Ir'ilt. if f 1 (d)(6), have chosen to not prosecute him. And I 2 think we wouldn't be here. I don't see how that 3 would have been an infringement on prosecutorial 4 discretion. 5 MR. LEE: Well, Your Honor, we respectfully 6 believe that we probably still would be here, 7 because -- for this reason: If all of that had 8 been done in 2007, when the agreement was still in 9 its initial stages and about to be executed, and 10 all of these things were done to Jane Does 1 and 2, 11 they were told this, this, this, and this, if they 12 were dissatisfied with this agreement, they would 13 forward and presumably invoke 3771(d)(3) and file 14 an action just like they did in this case, and they 15 would complain about this being improperly done. 16 And this is something that this court would have no 17 authority to render an opinion on because under the 18 Separation of Powers Doctrine this is an exercise 19 of discretion on the part of the Government of the 20 United States to which prosecution functions are 21 exclusively entrusted. 22 THE COURT: Well, they may have filed a 23 proceeding even if they had been advised of what 24 your intent was or what your thoughts were. But 25 I'm -- it wouldn't be the same case. I don't know Page: 82 EFTA01070689 sor & Associates Repo,,,,, z and 1ras•c•ori,ot. cc 1 what they would be complaining about, maybe that 2 you didn't confer adequately enough, but I don't 3 think they would be saying, you can't enter into 4 the non-prosecution agreement because we object. 5 MR. LEE: Well, they seem to be suggesting 6 that now, that it should be vacated because they 7 weren't consulted on it. That's exactly what they 8 are claiming. 9 THE COURT: Because they weren't consulted. 10 But if they had been consulted, I don't know how 11 they would have that same argument. 12 MR. LEE: Well, Your Honor, what I'm saying is 13 that any interpretation has to be mindful of 14 whether or not it would impair the prosecutorial 15 discretion of the Attorney General. All right. So 16 the issue of when rights attach does impair or 17 could potentially impair the prosecutorial 18 discretion. 19 THE COURT: Why? 20 MR. LEE: Well, because the government 21 believes that these rights would only attach after 22 a formal charge has been filed. All right? The 23 government has exercised its discretion, and at 24 that point these rights would attach. So if 25 somebody is formally charged and the government Page: 83 EFTA01070690 * sor & Associates Rrpotion and It,' •I:TItle, Inc, 1 enters into negotiations to resolve the matter by a 2 plea, then the individual victims who are 3 identified can be notified, consulted, given a 4 voice, not a veto, and those individuals can have 5 their voice heard. If they're dissatisfied with 6 what the government does -- we've decided to go 7 ahead with the plea -- they can voice their 8 objections anew before the court in a Rule 11 plea 9 proceeding. So that is a construction that does 10 not impair a prosecutorial discretion. 11 THE COURT: But why does it make any 12 difference if the conferring or the expression or 13 disapproval is done before indictment or after 14 indictment? How does it impinge on your 15 discretion? I don't follow. 16 MR. LEE: Well, Your Honor, what this would 17 involve is involving the executive branch in 18 litigation because the individual victims, after 19 being consulted -- or after not being consulted -- 20 would basically try to assert rights and basically 21 interfere with the process of returning the charge. 22 Let me give you an example, Your Honor. Let's 23 say somebody is the victim of a crime of violence 24 and the government is investigating it. It's the 25 FBI. And the FBI has decided to refer it to the Page: 84 EFTA01070691 sor & Associates Repo,,,,, z and 1ras•c•pri,,•. cc 1 U.S. Attorney's Office and the U.S. Attorney's 2 Office decides, we don't think there's sufficient 3 evidence to return an indictment in this case; 4 we're not going to accept this for prosecution. 5 Well, there's an FBI case. Under petitioners' 6 formulation, they would have rights to be consulted 7 on the decision whether or not to accept the case 8 for prosecution. And that, we believe, would be an 9 improper interference with the discretion of the 10 United States Attorney's Office. That's exactly 11 what we're talking about, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: But we're talking about 13 consulting, not deciding whether to or not to 14 prosecute. 15 MR. LEE: Yes, Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: So I'm trying to understand how 17 the fact that you might -- if I accept the 18 plaintiffs' position or interpretation, you might 19 have to consult with the victim before you decide 20 not to prosecute, how that impinges on your 21 ultimate decision to or not to prosecute? 22 MR. LEE: Well, Your Honor, we believe that 23 the proper construction of this thing is to allow 24 the government to exercise its discretion in terms 25 of whether to charge or not to charge. Once that Page: 85 EFTA01070692 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, z and F13••••Ir'ilt. Ira 1 discretion is exercised and there's a charge filed, 2 then these rights would come into play. To do 3 otherwise, to create rights prior to any charging 4 decision being made, would basically allow these 5 individuals to essentially interfere with the 6 exercise of discretion and basically hail the 7 United States Government into court every time 8 somebody is now dissatisfied with something that is 9 being done. 10 The more orderly process is to have those 11 rights attach after the filing of a formal charge, 12 in which case there is an extant case; it is a 13 matter before a judicial officer of the 14 United States Federal Courts; and these things can 15 be more orderly ironed out and these disputes can 16 be aired out. 17 Your Honor, if I may, let me move on. 18 THE COURT: Hold on. 19 MR. LEE: Okay. 20 THE COURT: Would you or would you not agree 21 that all of the rights that are set forth in 22 3771(a), all of them have to do with an actual 23 ongoing proceeding other than possibly the right to 24 confer and the right to be treated with fairness? 25 MR. LEE: That's correct, and also -- Page: 86 EFTA01070693 * sor & Associates arpoling and function'''. Inc. 1 THE COURT: Or the right to be protected 2 from the accused. 3 MR. LEE: Yes, (a)(1). There are actually 4 five of them, Your Honor, that specifically 5 reference or -- arguably clearly suggest that it 6 only applies to a proceeding that's in existence, 7 yes. 8 THE COURT: All right. Well, if you -- if I 9 agree with your interpretation of the case, meaning 10 an actual filed case. 11 MR. LEE: Yes. 12 THE COURT: But the concern that you're having 13 about if I interpret this act to create rights in a 14 victim before indictment, somehow it's going to 15 flood the court with lawsuits challenging the 16 government's decision either to or not to 17 prosecute, the only one that can possibly apply 18 would be the right to confer. Everything else in 19 there has nothing to do with that possibility. 20 They couldn't come in under any of the other 21 subsections based on a decision not to prosecute, 22 correct? 23 MR. LEE: Well, perhaps (a)(8) might come into 24 play because the individual could say that they 25 weren't being treated with fairness. Page: 87 EFTA01070694 * sor & Associates grinning and Trinicription, In. 1 THE COURT: All right. But if the government 2 does confer, then that would be the only thing. 3 They confer. They decide not to prosecute. Then a 4 victim comes in and says, we're not being treated 5 with fairness because they chose not to prosecute. 6 Then you resort to (d)(6), which says they don't 7 have to agree with you; they just have to confer. 8 And fairness can't be telling them how to go 9 forward with a case or not to go forward with a 10 case, because of (d)(6). 11 So I'm trying to understand how your concern 12 about creating a right to confer before indictment 13 is going to upset your prosecutorial discretion. 14 MR. LEE: Your Honor, I'm not suggesting that 15 any action to enjoin the failure to prosecute, an 16 action to compel the government to prosecute or in 17 this case an action to compel the government not to 18 enter into a non-prosecution agreement would 19 ultimately be successful. But to the extent that a 20 court finds that these rights attach prior to the 21 filing of a formal charging instrument already when 22 the government has -- the United States Attorney's 23 Office has exercised its discretion, to the extent 24 that that right is deemed to exist prior, then it's 25 going to encourage people to come forward and Page: 88 EFTA01070695 sor & Associates Itcpe,,,,, z and I rar•t•print. If f 1 assert what they believe to be their rights. 2 THE COURT: All right. Let me ask you about 3 the provision that talks about when there's no 4 ongoing proceeding. Where is that subsection? 5 MR. LEE: Yes. Well, the venue provision in 6 (d)(3), Your Honor? 7 THE COURT: (d)(3), if no prosecution is 8 underway in the district court in which the crime 9 occurred. If there's no prosecution underway, yet 10 they are recognizing a lawsuit can be filed in the 11 district where the crime occurred, doesn't that 12 suggest that the rights can be enforced before an 13 indictment? 14 MR. LEE: Your Honor, we believe that this 15 provision -- well, it's a venue provision, to tell 16 the individual who seeks to enforce their rights 17 where to file, and in so far as where the -- if no 18 prosecution is underway in the district where the 19 offense occurred, this would allow somebody to come 20 in and essentially assert their rights for an 21 individual who has been arrested and perhaps 22 charged by a complaint but has not been formally 23 indicted yet and the time limitation for a formal 24 indictment has not lapsed. 25 THE COURT: But you said that the rights don't Page: 89 EFTA01070696 sor & Associates Repo,,,,, z and 1ras•c•op.,,ot. NC 1 begin to accrue until indictment. So how can it, 2 you know, work both ways? 3 MR. LEE: Well, there's a right to a notice of 4 public proceedings. So there is an intervening 5 period between initial arrest and initial 6 appearance in a bond hearing. And the individual, 7 if they feared whether -- that the accused was 8 going to harm them, should have the opportunity to 9 attend and have their say in so far as whether 10 somebody should be released and the conditions upon 11 which he or she should be released. 12 THE COURT: All right. So let's assume that 13 someone is arrested; a criminal complaint is filed; 14 there's no indictment; there's a bond hearing; the 15 victim is not notified; the accused is released on 16 bond; attacks the victim; and the victim comes in 17 and files a complaint or a lawsuit. Do they have 18 rights? 19 MR. LEE: There's no cause of action for 20 damages under the CVRA, Your Honor. 21 THE COURT: They file an action asking the 22 court to conclude that their rights were violated 23 under the Act and want the court to know about it, 24 can they do that? Do they have standing to come in 25 and file an action to make the court aware of the Page: 90 EFTA01070697 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, z and tras•c•ip.int. It c 1 fact that their rights were violated and you 2 should, you know, take that into account with 3 respect to these prosecutors and -- do they have 4 standing to file a lawsuit and come into court and 5 make the court aware of that? 6 MR. LEE: If they were somebody who was 7 entitled to notice of a public proceeding, like a 8 bond hearing, a pretrial detention hearing, 9 et cetera, and the individual had been apprehended 10 and was before the court, yes, they would have the 11 ability to do that. 12 THE COURT: So they have rights 13 pre-indictment? 14 MR. LEE: Yes, in this situation they would. 15 THE COURT: All right. 16 MR. LEE: We've already talked about 17 3771(a)(1), Your Honor. The petitioners' counsel 18 talked about what I said back on July the 11th, 19 2008. There is a right to protection from the 20 accused, and whether it springs from 3771(a)(1) or 21 some other provision -- and we did note that there 22 was another provision in the Victims' Rights Act to 23 cover individuals who are entitled to protection, 24 that would apply, yes. 25 THE COURT: So is your position then that only Page: 91 EFTA01070698 sor & Associates Rotuma' and In. •rvros. Inc. 1 with respect to 3771(a)(5), that's the only 2 subsection and only right under this act that 3 requires an indictment, but all the other rights 4 accrue, at least at the filing of a criminal 5 complaint or an arrest? 6 MR. LEE: Well, Your Honor, five of them 7 reference a specific public -- a proceeding. Okay? 8 So that, I think, we suggest assumes that there is 9 a formal charge. So we're talking about the three 10 remaining. 11 THE COURT: Well, why can't a bond hearing 12 require a full -- you're talking about a criminal 13 complaint is a formal charge? 14 MR. LEE: Well, a formal charge is actually an 15 information or an indictment. A criminal 16 complaint, however, brings the accused before the 17 court for the purposes of detention and then 18 subsequent charging pursuant to the running time 19 that you have -- that the government has before 20 they can return an indictment on the individual. A 21 number of individuals, because of how the crime was 22 discovered, are charged by complaint first, with an 23 indictment to subsequently follow. This basically 24 covers that period of time between the return of a 25 formal indictment and the initial arrest of the Page: 92 EFTA01070699 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, z and 1 I IccI' 1 individual appearance, bond hearing, pretrial 2 detention hearing. 3 THE COURT: All right. So does a person -- 4 does a victim of a crime, where the accused is 5 arrested and had a criminal complaint filed against 6 him or her, does that victim have a right to notice 7 of the bond hearing? 8 MR. LEE: Yes, they would, Your Honor. 9 THE COURT: All right. Does that person have 10 the right not to be excluded from the bond hearing? 11 MR. LEE: Yes, they would. 12 THE COURT: Does that person have the right to 13 be heard at the bond hearing? 14 MR. LEE: Yes, they would. 15 THE COURT: Does that person have the right to 16 have that bond hearing be conducted without 17 unreasonable delay? 18 MR. LEE: Yes. 19 THE COURT: But that person doesn't have a 20 right to confer with the attorney for the 21 government because an indictment hasn't been filed 22 yet? 23 MR. LEE: That is correct, because there is no 24 attorney for the government in the case, and we 25 believe that "in the case" is the relevant term Page: 93 EFTA01070700 sor & Associates 'burning and Trafctiption, Inc. 1 that is referenced. 2 THE COURT: And the -- 3 MR. LEE: I'm sorry, sir? 4 THE COURT: No, go ahead. 5 MR. LEE: And "case" means, in our view, 6 information or indictment, formal charge. 7 THE COURT: So again, I think I asked you 8 earlier, you're saying that the indictment as a 9 triggering event only applies in subsection 5, 10 because all the others can apply -- can occur 11 before indictment. 12 MR. LEE: It could, under the circumstances of 13 an individual being charged by a complaint. For 14 that period of time in between arrest -- the filing 15 of the complaint, initial arrest and the return of 16 the indictment, it could apply, yes. We believe 17 the strongest case for not applying is 3771(a)(5) 18 because there is no case. 19 THE COURT: And so when a criminal complaint 20 is filed, I think in the clerk's office they give 21 it a case number. 22 MR. LEE: I believe the Court is correct. 23 THE COURT: That's not a case? 24 MR. LEE: No. It would have to be an 25 information or an indictment. Page: 94 EFTA01070701 sor & Associates Repo,,,,, z and tras•cop.int. Ire 1 THE COURT: But as far as the clerk's office 2 is concerned, there's a case? 3 MR. LEE: That is correct. 4 THE COURT: But that statute -- that word 5 "case" there, even though in the ordinary course of 6 events in every district of the United States they 7 give a case number to a person who is arrested and 8 a criminal complaint is filed, that understanding 9 of the word "case" doesn't apply here; it's case 10 meaning indictment or information? 11 MR. LEE: That is correct, Your Honor. We 12 referenced Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c), 13 which talks about indictments and information 14 having to be signed by the attorney for the 15 government, which is the same phrase that is used 16 in 3771(a)(5). 17 THE COURT: Okay. And so I guess the 18 subsection that talks about investigation -- 19 MR. LEE: You're talking about (b)(1), 20 Your Honor? 21 THE COURT: (b)(1)? 22 MR. LEE: Let's see. I'm sorry. You're 23 talking about (c)(1), Your Honor, I think, best 24 efforts, and the personnel who are responsible for 25 assuring the individual was accorded their rights? Page: 95 EFTA01070702 * sor & Associates grpoling and Iri• •trIttle. NC. 1 THE COURT: Yes. And the detection, 2 investigation or prosecution of the crime. 3 MR. LEE: This is (c)(1), Your Honor. 4 Your Honor, the last phrase in (c)(1) is the -- 5 shall be "notified of, and accorded, the rights 6 described in subsection (a)." So this does not 7 inform when those rights attached. It essentially 8 says, these are the persons who are responsible for 9 ensuring that best efforts are utilized to ensure 10 these individuals have these rights once they 11 attach under subsection (a). 12 If I may give an example, Your Honor, somebody 13 is charged with a crime. Let's say it's a crime of 14 violence. And the individual fears that they may 15 be threatened by either the defendant, if the 16 individual makes bond, or the defendant's 17 relatives. This is a matter before the court 18 because a formal charge has been filed, but the 19 responsibility for ensuring reasonable protection 20 under 3771(a)(1) would not be a responsibility of 21 the prosecutor doing the case or the United States 22 Attorney's Office, but it would also include those 23 who investigated the case, the agency who has 24 basically brought the case. So this would be the 25 FBI, ATF, whatever law enforcement agency. Page: 96 EFTA01070703 sor & Associates Itcre,,,,, z and 1ras•c•ip.,,,t. I I c 1 So this explains what individuals are 2 responsible for ensuring that best efforts are used 3 to afford these rights once those rights attach. 4 But just because individuals who are described as 5 having responsibilities are in the investigative 6 process doesn't necessarily mean that in the 7 investigative process, pre-charge, that such rights 8 attach. 9 THE COURT: So, again, you just basically go 10 back to -- or fall back on the argument that "case" 11 means indictment or information, and whatever 12 rights accrue under these subsections, those are 13 the people that have to afford the rights? 14 MR. LEE: That is correct, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: All right. What else did you want 16 to argue? 17 MR. LEE: Your Honor, that was -- that 18 basically is the argument. Again, we ask the Court 19 to be mindful of the admonition about the 20 prosecutorial discretion. The question of when 21 these rights attached is extremely significant in 22 so far as when people can go into court and invoke 23 rights which they believe to exist, and to complain 24 about things that happened which involved the 25 exercise of the broad discretion of the executive Page: 97 EFTA01070704 sor & Associates Rap.,,,,, z and fraa.4•Ip•,,,t. il C 1 branch whether to charge somebody, how to charge 2 them, who to charge, what to charge, and how to 3 resolve the charges against an individual. 4 Thank you. 5 THE COURT: I'm -- 6 MR. LEE: Yes, sir? 7 THE COURT: Let me ask you another question. 8 Assume for the sake of argument, because the motion 9 that -- the motion that the plaintiffs have filed 10 have asked me to not only to make a determination 11 as to when their rights accrued but also that -- to 12 make a finding that the government has in fact 13 violated their rights based upon the information 14 contained in their motion. If I reject your 15 argument and conclude that the plaintiffs did have 16 rights as victims, that that were to be respected 17 under the statute, do you agree or do you believe 18 we need to resolve on another day whether or not 19 their rights were, in fact, violated, based upon 20 what has been presented to me thus far? 21 MR. LEE: Yes, Your Honor. Your Honor, if the 22 Court finds that these rights did indeed attach 23 prior to the filing of a formal charge, we have 24 asserted a best efforts defense, if you will -- I 25 will call it that -- that we did exert our best Page: 98 EFTA01070705 sor & Associates Repo/ton anJ Iras•cip.int. cc 1 efforts to notify individuals under these 2 circumstances of what was going on in so far as the 3 non-prosecution agreement. That, in our view, 4 would require an evidentiary hearing and testimony 5 and documents -- factual matters to be submitted 6 for the Court to make a determination as to what 7 occurred and whether this constituted best efforts 8 or not. 9 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 10 MR. LEE: Thank you, Your Honor. 11 MR. CASSELL: May I have just one moment? 12 THE COURT: Yes. I think Mr. Lee is 13 conferring with Ms. Villafana so he may want to add 14 something. 15 Did you have anything else you wanted to add, 16 Mr. Lee? 17 MR. LEE: No, Your Honor. 18 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 19 MR. CASSELL: I think Mr. Lee is correct when 20 he says this is at bottom an issue of statutory 21 construction, and we think the cardinal rule of 22 construction you should apply here is Congress 23 passed the Crime Victims' Rights Act as a remedial 24 statute to address a particular problem, the unfair 25 treatment of crime victims throughout the criminal Page: 99 EFTA01070706 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, z and fray•c•ip, ot. lit 1 justice process. And so the Act should be broadly 2 construed to effectuate its remedial purposes, that 3 is, to make sure that crime victims are treated 4 fairly throughout the process. 5 The position they are staking out today is 6 that they can simply make rights in the statute 7 disappear through the simple device of not filing 8 an indictment. And I think Your Honor has done a 9 very nice job of walking through why that doesn't 10 apply on a number of the different provisions that 11 are in there, and it would be interesting to see. 12 I think the government is conceding that the 13 right to fairness can apply even before an 14 indictment is filed because that doesn't link to a 15 court proceeding. And, of course, that's one of 16 the rights we've alleged has been violated here, 17 the right to fair treatment. So perhaps I 18 misunderstood but I think the -- at least the 19 effect of the government's position is that that 20 particular right would apply, even though no 21 indictment was applied in this case. 22 But let's look at the (a)(5) right then, the 23 right to confer and whether there was a violation 24 here. The main argument that Mr. Lee seems to be 25 advancing is that while that would impair the Page: 100 EFTA01070707 * sor & Associates Itrpotion and Function'''. Inc. 1 discretion of the Justice Department, the Justice 2 Department advanced the same argument in the Fifth 3 Circuit in the Dean case, and the Fifth Circuit 4 rejected it. Here is what the Fifth Circuit said: 5 Recognizing a right to confer about dispositions 6 is, quote, not an infringement on the government's 7 independent prosecutorial discretion. And instead, 8 it is only a requirement that the government confer 9 in some reasonable way with the victims before 10 ultimately exercising its broad discretion. 11 We would ask you to take exactly the same 12 position in this case. We simply believe that we 13 had an -- we were entitled to an opportunity to 14 confer with them before they decided to do what 15 they did in this particular case. 16 Now he says, well, if you open up this 17 particular case, rule in our favor, the flood gates 18 will be open. We wouldn't be here if our clients 19 had been given an opportunity to confer about the 20 non-prosecution agreement and having made what we 21 think would have been compelling arguments not to 22 move forward in that direction. The government had 23 nonetheless exercised its discretion to move 24 forward. But our clients were denied that chance. 25 They never got to make a presentation to the Page: 101 EFTA01070708 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, z and I ras•c•priot. cc 1 government about why that was a bad resolution of 2 the case. And we submit that the only remedy, if 3 we get that far, is to therefore set aside the 4 non-prosecution agreement and give them that 5 opportunity. But certainly you shouldn't worry 6 about frivolous claims being raised because those 7 would be frivolous and would be routinely rejected. 8 In fact, it's interesting, let's look at what 9 has happened in the Fifth Circuit since the Dean 10 case three years ago, when the Fifth Circuit 11 clearly recognized that there were rights before 12 indictment. I don't think Mr. Lee can say in good 13 faith there have been a flood of frivolous claims. 14 I track crime victims' rights litigation. I don't 15 think that there's been any sudden spurt of 16 litigation down there. 17 Now, he also says that, well, this would lead 18 to interference because people would object to 19 whether we decided to accept a case or not. That's 20 the question that you were raising with me earlier, 21 how far back in the process do we go? We don't 22 have to deal with those questions in this 23 particular case. The government accepted this case 24 for prosecution. They then did what? They sent 25 CVRA notices to our clients saying, you have rights Page: 102 EFTA01070709 sor & Associates Rcre,,,,, z and fray•t•ip.int. II( 1 under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Then they sat 2 down with Epstein's attorney to negotiate a very 3 specific non-prosecution agreement which would make 4 it impossible for any federal prosecutorial agency 5 to prosecute the federal crimes that were committed 6 against Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. 7 At least at that point, they had the right to 8 say to the prosecutors, you are making a mistake, 9 and that's the right that Congress gave them and 10 that's the right that's being violated here. 11 Now, how far back in the process do we go? I 12 think we got a little more specificity from the 13 government today. We hear that it turns out it's 14 not really the indictment that triggers the right. 15 You go all the way back to a complaint. But then 16 you pushed him a little bit more, what about an 17 arrest? And if I understood Mr. Lee correctly, 18 they agree that even an arrest would be enough to 19 trigger that. But, of course, an arrest is not a 20 formal charge. And why would we magically stop the 21 Crime Victims' Rights Act at the point of arrest? 22 The term "arrest" doesn't appear anywhere in the 23 statute. Essentially, they are trying to stake out 24 a litigating position that helps them in this case 25 but it doesn't have any grounding at all in the Page: 103 EFTA01070710 sor & Associates Reportin anJ Irar•cip.iiit. Irc 1 language of the statute. The language of the 2 statute that's relevant here is that it applies to 3 agencies that are involved in the detection and 4 investigation of crimes. The words "investigation 5 of crimes" will become completely meaningless in 6 the statute if you agree with the government's 7 position. 8 Now, the last thing that Mr. Lee says is, 9 well, this right to confer applies only to cases, 10 and obviously there's no case here. I don't think 11 that point is obvious at all. And, in fact, I 12 would simply use the words that the government used 13 when they communicated with Jane Doe No. 1. Here 14 is the letter that they sent to Jane Doe No. 1 on 15 January 10th, 2008: Dear Ms. Jane Doe No. 1, this 16 case is currently under investigation. 17 They told Jane Doe No. 1 that her case was 18 under investigation, and they told her in 19 communications like this that she had rights under 20 the Crime Victims' Rights Act. And now they come 21 into this court and ask you to find that even 22 though that's exactly what they told Jane Doe 23 No. 1, you should simply ignore what they said then 24 and conclude that they had no rights. 25 Whatever else you might say about that, I Page: 104 EFTA01070711 sor & Associates Reporing and Trenctiptlus. Inc. 1 think that's clearly a violation of a right to 2 confer but it's certainly a violation of their 3 right to be treated with fairness. It is a 4 violation of their right to accurate notice about 5 what's going on in court proceedings. 6 And so how should you proceed at this point? 7 Let me offer just one possible way out procedurally 8 of where we are right now. I think the Court has 9 plenty of information to rule today that the Crime 10 Victims' Rights Act applied to the victims in this 11 particular case and we would ask you to enter an 12 order to that effect. If you're not prepared to do 13 that, then at that point we would request full 14 discovery in this case. Or if you enter an order 15 saying it applies pre-indictment, we would also ask 16 to move forward with full discovery. Simply to say 17 that the civil rules apply, we're prepared to move 18 forward on an expedited basis. We're prepared to 19 move forward with narrowly tailored requests on the 20 information that we need; recalling, though, that 21 we're going to be asking for information not only 22 to prove that the victims' rights were violated in 23 this case but we are also going to be asking for 24 information that we hope will ultimately convince 25 you that the only just remedy in this case is to Page: 105 EFTA01070712 * sor & Associates anntints on Tunninno. In. 1 take this illegal agreement that was reached by the 2 government, in violation of the rights of Jane Doe 3 No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, and to set that agreement 4 aside. 5 THE COURT: I guess this is maybe getting 6 ahead of ourselves. You call it an illegal 7 agreement and you rely upon cases that basically 8 set aside sentences or that are in fact beyond the 9 statutory authority of the court to impose. 10 There's nothing illegal about the substance of this 11 agreement itself, as compared to a sentence which 12 is, let's say, in excess of the statutory maximum. 13 That is clearly an illegal sentence; it's beyond 14 the power of the court to impose. This agreement 15 is not outside of the U.S. Attorney's Office to 16 enter into. The substance of it is not illegal. 17 You're saying the manner in which it was entered 18 into or the process -- 19 MR. CASSELL: That's right. 20 THE COURT: So those cases -- do you think 21 those cases really apply to this situation saying 22 that it's illegal and therefore an unenforceable 23 agreement? 24 MR. CASSELL: Yes, we do. I mean, the 25 point -- the general proposition that those cases Page: 106 EFTA01070713 * sor & Associates Itrpoling and In. •tvros. Inc. 1 stand for is that an illegal agreement can be set 2 aside. And so the question then becomes, all 3 right, does it have to be substantively illegal or 4 is it enough to show that something is procedurally 5 illegal? 6 Let me give you what I think is a very 7 straightforward example of an illegal procedural 8 agreement. Suppose this court were just to enter 9 an order today saying, I know Smith is a criminal; 10 I'm going to sentence Smith to two years in prison. 11 Well, wait a minute. That would be within -- two 12 years in prison for dealing drugs. Well, dealing 13 drugs is a five-year maximum. Two years is within 14 that. But that is a procedurally illegal sentence 15 because Mr. Smith never had his right to a jury 16 trial, his right to counsel, opportunity to 17 confront. So you would -- that agreement or that 18 sentence would be ultimately challenged as being 19 procedurally illegal. 20 We think the same analysis applies here. 21 There is a document, a non-prosecution agreement, 22 that is void because it was entered into in a 23 procedurally illegal way. It violated the rights 24 of both Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 to have 25 an opportunity to confer with the government and to Page: 107 EFTA01070714 sor & Associates Repo,,,,, z and F13••••Ir'ilt. Ire 1 be treated with fairness. But, again, we have not 2 had a full opportunity to brief that. 3 THE COURT: I understand that. I was just -- 4 MR. CASSELL: But that's where we are going, 5 and I want to be clear when we get into the 6 discovery phase we think -- I mean, we think you 7 could rule this afternoon that their rights were 8 violated. We think it's patently obvious they 9 weren't treated with fairness, patently obvious 10 they did not give a right to confer. And if you 11 say, hey, do you really need discovery to do that, 12 we think you could rule on that today. 13 You have denied our motion to accept facts. 14 I'm assuming that's without prejudice to give us 15 the opportunity to deal with that in an appropriate 16 way. 17 THE COURT: Of course. 18 MR. CASSELL: The trickier issue in the case, 19 or at least the one we think requires some 20 discovery, is how was that illegal agreement 21 reached? We intend to produce -- or obtain 22 information from the government which shows they 23 deliberately violated the rights of the victims and 24 they did so with the defendant, Mr. Epstein, 25 engineering them. And for that reason, we are Page: 108 EFTA01070715 * sor & Associates drpotioad and Truactipous. Inc. 1 going to ask for the agreement to be set aside. 2 THE COURT: To the extent you want to show 3 that, and assuming I agree that you're entitled to 4 show that, you would agree the government is 5 entitled to show to the contrary and that they 6 exercised best efforts, and they should be entitled 7 to prove otherwise? 8 MR. CASSELL: We're not arguing for a 9 one-sided affair here at all, no, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 11 MR. CASSELL: Thank you. 12 THE COURT: Mr. Lee, did you have something 13 else? 14 MR. LEE: Your Honor, I have one procedural 15 matter, if I may. Thank you, Your Honor. 16 Your Honor, in May of this year, the Office of 17 Legal Counsel for the Department of Justice issued 18 an opinion about the very issue that the Court is 19 grappling with, and we would like to offer to the 20 Court -- we will actually file it, but if I may 21 approach and provide a copy, I've provided a copy 22 to counsel. We believe that this is entitled to 23 some deference in so far as this is the position of 24 the Department of Justice. We're not suggesting 25 that it's entitled to full deference under Chevron Page: 109 EFTA01070716 sor & Associates Repottttt z and Iras•i•op•,,ot. Ire 1 versus Natural Resources Council, because this was 2 not subject to notice and comment procedures. We 3 are going to file it electronically and we wanted 4 to provide a copy to the Court now, if we may. 5 THE COURT: Any objection? 6 MR. CASSELL: If I could just comment briefly 7 on the substance that's in there? 8 THE COURT: Sure. 9 MR. CASSELL: This is a -- you will recall 10 just a little bit ago we were discussing 11 Senator Kyl's remarks. That's why Senator Kyl sent 12 the letter to the Attorney General saying, how dare 13 you put in this memorandum my remarks during the 14 drafting of the CVRA as suggesting that the rights 15 don't apply at the early stages of the criminal 16 justice process. So if you're going to look at 17 this, I think in fairness you need to look at 18 Senator Kyl's rebuttal. 19 The other point that I would make is, we 20 believe that this document was engineered precisely 21 to help the government win, among other things, 22 this particular case. And so we don't believe that 23 it's entitled to the same kind of deference as you 24 would ordinarily give to agency decisions that are 25 decided without regard to pending litigation. Page: 110 EFTA01070717 sor & Associates Reportin anJ Ins•c•ip.,,,t. i I f 1 Perhaps Mr. Lee could acknowledge the fact, which I 2 think is clear, that the Justice Department knew it 3 had this very serious matter pending in this court, 4 which is why it asked for this opinion. And so 5 this opinion is, I think, simply like an extra 6 brief coming in on their side. 7 THE COURT: And you didn't ask Senator Kyl to 8 write the letter? You didn't ask Senator Kyl to 9 write the letter? 10 MR. CASSELL: We keep Senator Kyl apprised of 11 significant developments. 12 MR. LEE: Your Honor, we did not -- we, the 13 United States Attorney's Office, did not request 14 this. It was issued originally on December 17th 15 but it was not made public. Essentially, this was 16 a position taken by the Department of Justice. 17 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 18 MR. LEE: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: All right. Anything else we need 20 or should talk about before we adjourn? 21 MR. EDWARDS: I don't think so, Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Thank you 23 all for coming. We will try and get some rulings 24 out in the near future. Have a good afternoon. 25 (The hearing was concluded.) Page: 111 EFTA01070718 sor & Associates Rapetttttz and Irro.(-tr.•,,,, In 1 CERTIFICATE 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA 4 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH 5 6 7 I, Melinda Colchico, Florida Professional 8 Reporter, State of Florida at large, do hereby 9 certify that I was authorized to and did 10 stenographically report the foregoing proceedings 11 and that the transcript is a true and complete 12 record of my stenographic notes. 13 Dated this 15th day of August, 2011. 14 15 16 79*oet,Othite:,) 17 MELINDA COLCHICO 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page: 112 EFTA01070719 *potmg sor & Associates and Tr*.ctiptios, Ina WORD INDEX 77:25 82:10 40 14:19 8 55:13 57:20 103:6 106:3 404 20:14 79:8 87:23 <0> 107:24 410 15: / 7 16:5, 80 15:10 00 1:1 2005 14:22 21 24:7 29:22 801 2:8 0730 2:8 2007 10:16 82:8 30:13 36:25 80736 1:1 3:5 08 1:1 3:5 2008 10:16 425 2:4 84112 2:8 0905 1:1 53:21 58:6 4TH 2:15 865 12:9 70:10 72:5, 10 87 14:22 <1> 91:19 104:15 <5> 1 1:1 3:4, 14 201 2:20 5 79:10 92:1 < 9> 55:13 63:19 2011 1:1 53:19 94:9, 17 95:16 90 61:4 76:18 77:25 112:13 100:22 904 2:11 79:7 82:10 202 2:24 50 81:24 9320 2:16 87:3 91: / 7, 20 23rd 10:16 500 1:1 954 2:5 95:19, 21, 23 24 7:7 8:4 501 25:11, 12 961 2:16 96:3, 4, 20 11:24 12:11 5202 2:8 99 2:15 103:6 104:13, 250 2:10, 22 524 2:5 14, 15, 17, 23 257 20:14 53 45:14, 18 <A> 106:3 107:24 26 41:18 49:8, 46:2 58:21 ABA 14:13 10 27:9 14 61:24 ability 38:1 101 2:7 2820 2:5 544 20:9 91: / / 10th 104:15 2d 12:9, 14 561 1:1 2:24 able 20:1 22:24 11 7:9 9:20 13:4 20:9 585 2:8 31:18 32:20 10:5 15:16, 17 33:12 39:6 16:20, 21 72:10 <3> <6> abolish 77:21 84:8 3 82:13 89:6, 7 6 15:16 23:8 absolute 8:7 1197 12:9 3.9 14:24 26:21, 24 27:1, 78:14 11th 72:5 91:18 300 2:15 18, 24 28:5, 9 absolutely 4:23 12 1:1 305 2:16, 21 34:9 35:15 abuse 4:25 1234 2:11 32211 2:11 66:12, 16, 23, 24 abused 78:2 1257 13:4 33131 2:20 67:5, 10, 12, 23 accept 25:13 1300 2:20 33132 2:16 68:1 79:21 42:18, 20 46:7 1330 12:14 332 2:7 82:1 88:6, 10 70:3 85:4, 7, 17 1400 2:7, 23 33301 2:4 6360 2:24 102:19 108:13 15 78:24 33401 1:1, 1 6421 2:21 accepted 40:1 15th 112:13 2:23 644 2:10 45:4 70:19 1655 1:1 371 2:21 680 2:11 102:23 17th 111:14 3771 55:13 682 1:1 accepting 42:11 19 1:1 57:20 72:13 access 57:16 1977 20:10 79:7, 10, 21 <7> accomplish 1989 12:9 82:13 86:22 7 95:12 44:16 1990s 20:19 91:17, 20 92:1 7.5 45:2 accord 57:3 1996 10:15 94:17 95:16 716 13:4 accorded 57:15 96:20 735 12:14 72:13 95:25 <2> 791 20:9 96:5 2 1:1, 1 2:4 <4> account 91:2 3:5, 14 12:11 4 1:1 <8> accrue 68:25 63:20 76:18 90:1 92:4 97:12 Page: I EFTA01070720 accrued 55:13 1012 sor & Associates poron, and Trss,crigtio, additional 45:24 afford 50:22 94:4 106:6 98: / / 58:17 61:22 70:1 97:3, 13 ahold 67: / 7 accurate 63:23 additionally afraid 49:24 aired 86:16 105:4 32:19 afternoon 3:3, 7, airline 25:16 accused 87:2 address 4:13 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, Airlines 25:6, 7 90:7, 15 91:20 17:14 19:20 20, 21, 23 4:8, 9 Al 13:3 92:16 93:4 22:24, 25 35:20 11:20, 21 47:19 allegation 10:22 achieving 9:9 36:2, 4 53:16 63:9 78:23 allegations 4:17 acknowledge 67:10 69:4 108:7 111:24 5:1, 10 6:18 111:1 99:24 agencies 69:22 7:8, 19 8:13 acknowledged adequately 83:2 70:5, 7 104:3 alleged 4:20 62:21 adjourn 111:20 agency 54:14, 79:9 100:16 Act 4:15 8:10 administration 16 96:23, 25 allow 6:11, 15 9:12, 13 31:25 14:17 103:4 110:24 7:7 8:8 10:23 33:7 41:21 Administrative agent 28:2 12:18 13:7 42:5, 16 45:18 54:14 ago 14:19 73:2, 26:4 52:13 48:5 51:9, 15, admissibility 21 102:10 56:14 63:13 25 52:8, 16 29:23 110:10 64:5 66:4 54:15 61:9 admissions 16:8 agree 8:2 35:5, 85:23 86:4 64: / / 69:6, 15 40:14, 18 49:12 13 42:14 43:25 89:19 70:8 71:19, 22 50:6 63:14 45:24 47:9 allowed 5:16 72:9 73:19, 23, admit 40:21, 24 55:2, 25, 25 ally 53:2 25 74:9 75:1, 4 41:1, 8, 12 44:14 56:2 59:2 alternative 8:19 76:2, 16, 20 admits 59:16 86:20 87:9 America 3:9 78:5, 14, 17 admitted 40:24 88:7 98:17 American 24:6, 87:13 90:23 41:13 45:4 103:18 104:6 10 25:6, 7 91:22 92:2 admitting 16:12 109:3, 4 amount 27:7 99:23 100:1 41:11 agreed 45:23 57:15 103:1, 21 admonition 68:10 analogize 25:4 104:20 105:10 97:19 agreement analysis 10:6 acting 37:9 advanced 101:2 13:25 19:14 55:19 107:20 80:18 advancing 36:21 40:25 ancillary 44:11 action 8:14 100:25 43:11, 15, 17 54:7 55:2 54:12, 14, 16, 21, adversarial 46:3, 10 48:7 ANDREWS 2:4 22 55:3 82:14 28:18 51:11 52:1, 18 58:10 anew 84:8 88:15, 16, 17 adversaries 61:12, 13 77:1, angle 36:8 90:19, 21, 25 24:25 25:1 20, 23 81:11, 12, answer 14:7 actions 10:8 50:19 53:3 14 82:8, 12 48:17 70:15, 17 32:6, 8 33:3 adversary 14:4, 83:4 88:18 72:10 74:23 54:5 6 29:20 30:23 99:3 101:20 75:7 actual 68:8 adversely 28:13 102:4 103:3 anticipated 86:22 87:10 advice 81:7 106:1, 3, 7, 11, 75:14 ad 6:10 advised 21:4 14, 23 107:1, 8, anybody 8:25 add 20:16 82:23 17, 21 108:20 17:7 27:19 67:7 33:23 99:13, 15 affair 109:9 109:1 APA 54:14 added 15:5 affidavits 40:13 ah 67:18 appeal 10:3 addition 20:17 affirmative 51:1 ahead 84:7 Appeals 74:11 43:24 appear 103:22 Page: 2 EFTA01070721 appearance 1012 sor & Associates poong and Trsa.tiptio, Ina 51:18 63:3 assistance 67:13 73:4 90:6 93:1 66:23 69:1 44:15 51:13 74:20 77:6 APPEARANCES 70:12 83:11 52:21 57:24 79:11, 24 80:6, 2:1 3:6 97:10, 18 98:8, ASSISTANT 8, 18 81:2, 13 appearing 3:18 15 100:24 101:2 2:15 3:9, 10 83:15 93:20, 24 applied 100:21 arguments 9:15, 32:11 95:14 103:2 105:10 17 30:12 63:7 assisted 58:11 110:12 applies 19:4 67:4 101:21 associated 24:20 ATTORNEYS 21:22 22:4 arranged 37:19 Associates 1:1 2:15 11:18 31:1 71:15 arrest 72:2 2:10 13:17 29:2 74:10 75:1, 4 90:5 92:5, 25 assume 28:12 30:5, 10 31:23 78:14, 17 87:6 94:14, 15 36:22 63:5 32:11 62:1 94:9 104:2, 9 103:17, 18, 19, 65:14 90:12 64:24 76:25 105:15 107:20 21, 22 98:8 Attorney's 13:19 apply 29:22 arrested 71:18 assumes 92:8 23:14 47:16 49:22 50:1 89:21 90:13 assuming 31:25 48:10 64:24 53:8 69:6, 17 93:5 95:7 44:7 45:2 85:1, 1, 10 70:5 72:1, 8, 11, aside 48:6 52:1, 108:14 109:3 88:22 96:22 17, 25 73:19, 25 18 102:3 106:4, assumption 56:6 106:15 111:13 74:18 80:15 8 107:2 109:1 assuring 95:25 August 1:1 87:17 91:24 asked 21:25 ATF 96:25 112:13 94:10, 16 95:9 40:23 41:6 attach 77:4, 10 AUSTRALIAN 99:22 100:10, 44:15 48:2 79:7 83:16, 21, 2:22 13, 20 105: / 7 49:8, 15 72:6 24 86:11 88:20 authority 7:9 106:21 110:15 94:7 98:10 96: / / 97:3, 8 57:21 65:13 applying 94:17 111:4 98:22 73:2 74:22 appreciate 81:22 asking 6:21 7:5 attached 45:18 82:17 106:9 apprehended 8:19, 20 9:21, 76:16, 22, 23 authorized 112:9 91:9 22 10:25 28:25 77:17 96:7 automatic 31:9 apprised 111:10 51:22 59:19 97:21 available 42:6 approach 42:23 62:14 67:7 attachment AVENUE 2:4, 22 109:21 72:7 75:19 77:19 avoided 9:25 appropriate 48:5 90:21 105:21, 23 attack 4:24 7:14 aware 47:20 51:25 52:17 aspect 41:3 attacked 9:17 49:5 61:18 55:6 61:11 assert 71:2 attacks 6:10 90:25 91:5 65:13 108:15 84:20 89:1, 20 90:16 areas 68:10 asserted 22:13 attempt 40:17 <B> arguably 29:10 98:24 41:17 back 14:18 87:5 asserting 34:15, attend 90:9 15:11 27:5 argue 8:9 30:15 18 70:23 attention 34:8 32:12, 16 33:22 40:3 97:16 assertion 22:6, Attorney 3:10, 37:14, 24 40:23 argued 51:4, 5 7, 10 33:25 11,24 10:7, 15 41:19 44:1 arguing 109:8 34:12 35:13, 14 12:20, 23 13:9, 58:6, 13 70:10 argument 21:12, assertions 35:4, 10, 22, 23 16:19 72:5 75:13 15 29:15 30:13, 7, 9 18:9 22:17 78:9 91:18 18 31:20 36:17, assist 51:16 23:14 24:16, 17 97:10, 10 19 37:4, 5 38:9 28:7 32:12 102:21 103:11, 44:2 49:1, 2, 21 37:5 60:11, 14 Page: 3 EFTA01070722 sor & Associates *Ripitronts and It, it . 15 54:4, 20, 25 21, 24 66:6, 18 background 14:9 55:1, 11, 23 68:14, 14 <C> backs 32:22 59:5 61:5 68:3, Black's 33:25 Cali 25:6 backyard 9:2 9, 15 75:12 blocked 50:11 call 45:8 60:25 bad 10:10, 22 82:6 85:8, 22 body 71:20 75:17, 18 81:1 102:1 89:1, 14 93:25 bond 90:6, 14, 98:25 106:6 balancing 26:7, 94:16, 22 97:23 16 91:8 92:11 called 69:4 18 98:17 101:12 93:1, 7, 10, 13, calling 59:11 bank 77:2, 3, 3, 109:22 110:20, 16 96:16 cardinal 99:21 6, 7 22 book 17:12 CASE 1:1 3:4, Bar 4:21 5:2, 3 believed 5:4, 7, bottom 22:1 5 6:5, 11, 14 14:14 8 55:6 56:13 50:3 99:20 8:15 10:1 12:9 bargain 20:3, 24 believes 83:21 Boulevard 1:1 14:18 15:10 bargaining belong 6:19 2:10, 20 17:8, 17 18:2, 4, 14:16 15:3, 7, beneficial 28:19 BRAD 2:3 3:14 12, 23 19:8, 23, 15, 19, 23 16:5 best 31:13 Brady 56:24, 25 24, 25 20:4, 10, 19:12 20:18 50:21, 22 51:10, 57:11 59:23 11, 25 21:1 26:8 37:14 16 53:5 95:23 62:10, 11, 12 22:4 25:3, 5 base 49:11 96:9 97:2 branch 84:17 26:17 28:8 based 21:14 98:24, 25 99:7 98:1 29:2, 5, 5, 22, 25 43:5 56:25 109:6 breach 67:23 30:16 31:4, 6 61:20 87:21 better 64:18 break 78:21, 24 40:16, 20 41:4, 98:13, 19 Beyond 17:5 brief 21:12, 21 5, 20, 22, 24, 25 basically 7:20 50:15 76:12 31:5 33:19 42:1 44:10, 12, 11:8 35:14 106:8, 13 49:3 71: / 7, 21 13 49:3 50:4, 49:14 61:4 bind 36:5 75:20 108:2 17 51:20 52:23 62:13 81:1 BISCAYNE 2:20 111:6 53:7, 12, 12, 25 84:20, 20 86:4, bit 36:10 briefing 74:13 54:1,4 56:1, 25 6 92:23 96:24 103:16 110:10 briefings 21:4 57:7, 11 58:4, 7, 97:9, 18 106:7 bite 37:24 briefly 67:4 10 60:13, 20 basis 22:14, 19 BLACK 2:19, 19 110:6 61:5, 12, 17, 19 50:5 61:15 3:17, 18, 19 briefs 20:2 62:3, 12 63:16, 105:18 11:17, 19, 22 37:17 19, 20 68:24 Beach 1:1, 1, 1 12:4, 6 13:21 bring 44:23 70:11 73:18 2:23 112:4 14:2, 7 16:4, 16 brings 92:16 74:8, 11, 12 began 58:7, 16 17:20 19:24 broad 55:10 75:8, 18, 20, 22 beginning 36:16 20:8 21:10, 17 97:25 101:10 76:1, 6, 10, 14 behalf 2:2, 13 22:12 23:8, 19, broadly 100:1 77:2, 12 78:7, 3:13, 18, 22 29:3 21 24:3 26:22 brought 78:2 16 79:11 81:9 behavior 6:2 27:1, 15 28:1, 96:24 82:14, 25 85:3, 7:4 8:22 14, 17, 23 29:2, BRUCE 2:22 5, 7 86:12, 12 believe 9:14 13, 21 33:22 3:22 87:9, 10 88:9, 10:8, 10 16:25 34:14 36:14, 16 bunch 44:4 10, 17 93:24, 25 17:5, 7 19:4 37:3, 5, 6 38:5, burdensome 94:5, 17, 18, 21, 20:13 32:19 7, 11, 17, 20, 22, 51:5 60:7 23 95:2, 5, 7, 9, 37:12 38:3 23, 25 39:8, 12, buried 4:15 9 96:21, 23, 24 41:16 42:12 15, 18, 22 65:20, business 4:19 97:10 100:21 45:1 46:21 101:3, 12, 15, 17 Page: 4 EFTA01070723 &Irl•Associates sorand 102:2, 10, 19, 23, CESERY 2:10 circumstances 102:11 105:1 23 103:24 cetera 91:9 10:7, 11, 13 106:13 104:10, 16, 17 challenged 43:9 94:12 99:2 clerk's 94:20 105:11, 14, 23, 107:18 cite 12:7 52:19, 95:1 25 108:18 challenging 23 56:23 client 12:19, 20, 110:22 87:15 cited 29:13 23, 23 13:8, 9, cases 12:7 chance 5:11 70:9 72:22 10 19:8, 9, 18 13:9, 13 14:23 74:13 101:24 73:23 21:3, 5 22:17 18:8 19:11, 19 changed 14:19 citing 13:9, 13 24:16, 17 28:20 20:5 21:12 58:14 59:7 21:11 37:8, 9 67:13 26:11, 11 29:13, chapter 79:23 CITY 2:8 clients 26:2 17 30:20, 24 charge 55:14, 20 Civ 1:1 28:13 37:15, 24 31:8, 10 38:2 81:3, 4 83:22 civil 5:6 13:2 40:11 43:13, 16, 52:19 58:17 84:21 85:25, 25 16:6 19:5, 8, 23, 16 101:18, 24 71:12 74:24 86:1, 11 92:9, 24 40:19 41:4, 102:25 75:17 104:9 13, 14 94:6 20, 22 44:13, 20 cloak 15:25 106:7, 20, 21, 25 96:18 97:7 46:18 49:3, 4, 6, 18:20 31:9 CASSELL 2:6 98:1, 1, 2, 2, 23 22, 24 50:1, 2, 7, cloaked 20:6 3:15 47:18, 19 103:20 7, 16, 17 53:7, 7 close 8:14 49:1, 18 58:3 charged 34:13 54:4, 11, 12, 21 75:17, 18 59:24 60:5 35:10 54:2 55:4 58:17 coded 68:11 62:23, 25 64:14, 83:25 89:22 63:16 105:17 coherent 71:14 22 65:4, 6 66:9 92:22 94:13 claim 22:11 Colchico 1:1 69:2, 3 73:14 96:13 23:4, 12 29:16 112:7, 17 75:11 99:11, 19 charges 37:22 48:3 51:23 colleague 34:6 106:19,24 70:24 72:14 52:7, 8 53:18 35:20 108:4, 18 109:8, 77:7, 16 98:3 55:24 57:25 collection 61:1 11 110:6, 9 charging 86:3 66:12 COLLEGE 2:6 111:10 88:21 92:18 claimed 32:24 Colombia 25:6 cause 7:10 cheating 6:7 35:4 color 68:11, 13 8:14, 22 56:12 Chevron 109:25 claiming 13:16 Colorable 13:10 90:19 child 51:22 78:2 56:17 83:8 29:14 30:17 caused 32:24 Chiles 12:8 claims 13:10 combination certain 32:15 choose 46:10 48:1 102:6, 13 78:15 34:12 35:25 chose 88:5 classic 18:6, 13 come 7:17, 22 40:21 41:9, 23 chosen 82:1 20:11 9:22 19:1 43:3 44:14 Circuit 12:9, 13, clause 50:23 29:15 31:12 57:15 68:7 16 13:6 15:12, 57:1, 8 37:24 40:25 72:12 74:4 13 20:10, 20, 20 clear 4:23 5:13 41:11 51:12, 14 80:16 81:15 21:1 74:11 7:13 10:1 13:7 56:4 72:13 certainly 8:24 77:12, 17 101:3, 15:24 47:24 86:2 87:20, 23 22:22 25:20 3, 4 102:9, 10 49:23 69:16 88:25 89:19 26:15, 18 37:7 circuits 20:21 76:1 78:16 90:24 91:4 50:9 53:22 Circuit's 74:21 108:5 111:2 104:20 75:17 102:5 circumscribed clearer 73:22 comes 54:13 105:2 69:17 clearly 6:19 88:4 90:16 certify 112:9 32:10 87:5 coming 30:21 37:14 111:6, 23 Page: 5 EFTA01070724 sor & Associates growing and Int •. - - it commenced comply 51:15 confidentiality context 19:20 53:21 62:22 18:17 24:9 30:24 32:17 commencement conceal 50:24 43:12 40:16 61:21 53:24 conceded 72:16 confirm 67:19, 62:7 73:7, 22 comment 22:16 conceding 25 continue 16:24 110:2, 6 100:12 conflicting 80:2 contours 22:3 comments 32:4 concept 59:23 confront 107:17 contract 33:14 commercial 6:4 concern 22:23 Congress 15:16 78:3 commit 20:22 66:3 87:12 50:20 79:18 contrary 49:24 committed 76:6, 88:11 99:22 103:9 50:20 51:6 13 103:5 concerned 7:24 congressional 109:5 common 25:13, 27:22 65:21, 23 69:13 convene 6:16, 14, 23 95:2 congressionally 22 7:10 communicate concerns 11:16 48:16 63:21 convenient 20:23 21:2 conclude 74:5 consider 7:13 72:20 communicated 75:3 78:13 36:6 41:3 46:16 conversation 104:13 90:22 98:15 consideration 31:17 communication 104:24 81:15 conversations 18:3 25:24 66:1 concluded considered 14:5 19:16 communications 111:25 25:9 convince 105:24 15:6 16:1, 20 concludes 74:9 consistent 51:9 cooperate 44:17 17:21, 23, 25 conclusion Consor 1:1 copies 68:13 19:6, 11 20:1 74:25 constitute 81:4 copy 109:2/, 21 23:16, 23, 24 conclusions constituted 99:7 110:4 26:8 104:19 46:9 Constitution corners 6:11 company 77:13 conditions 90:10 52:6 correct 14:1 compared conduct 7:18 constitutional 30:2 68:17, 20 106:11 40:17 41:7 52:7 80:9 86:25 compel 57:22 54:13 construction 87:22 93:23 88:16, 17 conducted 93:16 81:6 84:9 94:22 95:3, 11 compelling 81:8 confer 41:15 85:23 99:21, 22 97:14 99:19 101:21 63:22 74:20 construed 79:23 correctly 103:17 complain 9:1, 1 78:6 79:10 100:2 correspondence 27:13, 16 82:15 80:12, 23 83:2 construing 80:15 30:4, 12 31:15, 97:23 86:24 87:18 consult 85:19 22 32:13 34:9 complaining 88:2, 3, 7, 12 consulted 83:7, 35:1, 2, 19 46:1 28:7 32:7 83:1 93:20 100:23 9, 10 84:3, 19, 64:10, 16 65:19 complaint 28:11 101:5,8, 14, 19 19 85:6 76:8 89:22 90:13, 17 104:9 105:2 consulting 85:13 Council 110:1 92:5, 13, 16, 22 107:25 108:10 contained 79:20 counsel 3:6 93:5 94:13, 15, conferred 81:19 98:14 4:18 11:10 19 95:8 103:15 conferring 52:24 contemplating 14:4 16:20 complaints 28:4 80:10, 20 84:12 77:15 81:20 18:3 20:2 complete 73:8 99:13 contents 67:15 41:16 91:17 112: / / confess 58:18 contest 40:2 107:16 109:17, completely 54:4 confidential 43:2, 5 22 104:5 5:13 25:9 66:19 contested 43:21 counsels 3:15 complied 6:23 Page: 6 EFTA01070725 *Prpolring sor & Associates •nd country 29:18 47:1, 12, 15, 20, 26:10 38:3 95:8, 12 99:25 69:11 21 48:19 49:15, 75:12 79:19 107:9 110:15 counts 77:8 25 50:13 51:13 80:1 86:14 curious 33:24 COUNTY 112:4 52:11 53:13, 16 Court's 18:15 currently 104:16 couple 50:14 54:20, 24, 25 34:7 cut 22:13 76:2 73:1 55:8, 9, 11, 19, cover 91:23 CVRA 35:3 course 15:7, 14, 25 56:11, 13, 15 covers 66:23 54:5 57:19 17 16:5, 9, 12 58:2 59:22, 25 92:24 69:19 70:3, 22, 20:11 34:1, 21 60:22 61:18 Crash 25:6 22 74:6 79:20 49:11, 21 56:24 62:7, 20, 24 create 86:3 80:2 90:20 70:21 71:19 63:24 64:7, 17 87:13 102:25 110:14 74:8, 10 77:23 65:2, 5, 17 66:3, creating 88:12 CVRA's 74:19 79:13 95:5 8 67:1, 6 68:5, Crime 4:14 100:15 103:19 12, 18, 21, 23 9:12 34:13, 13, <D> 108:17 71:3, 5 73:3, 5 19 41:21 45:17 damage 37:15 COURT 1:1 3:3, 74:11, 24 75:6 48:4, 16 51:9, damages 90:20 8, 12, 16, 20, 23 78:1, 18 79:2, 5, 15, 24 52:8, 9, damper 38:1 4:9 5:17, 23 13, 13 80:10, 16, 15 54:2 61:8 dare 110:12 6:2, 8, 11, 13, 23 20 81:11, 16, 18 62:16 63:18 darn 61:6 7:3, 12, 18, 18, 82:16, 22 83:9, 64:10 69:5, 9, date 14:10 22 8:10, 15, 20, 19 84:8, 11 11, 15, 25 70:1, Dated 112:13 24 9:1, 3, 16, 22, 85:12, 16 86:7, 6, 8 71:6, 18, 22 day 4:17 75:23 22 10:17 11:4, 18, 20 87:1, 8, 72:8 73:18 78:1 98:18 11, 19, 21 12:2, 12, 15 88:1, 20 74:9 75:1, 4 112:13 5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 89:2, 7, 8, 25 76:1, 16, 19 days 39:19 18, 24 13:3, 7, 90:12, 21, 22, 23, 77:19, 21 78:5, DC 60:17 14, 23 14:3, 9, 25 91:4, 5, 10, 13, 17 84:23 deal 4:3 10:10 13, 15 15:15 12, 15, 25 92:11, 89:8, 11 92:21 75:9 102:22 16:2, 11 17:16 17 93:3, 9, 12, 93:4 96:2, 13, 108:15 19:5, 19 20:5, 15, 19 94:2, 4, 7, 13 99:23, 25 dealing 12:22 14 21:9, 11, 25 19, 22, 23 95:1, 100:3 102:14 15:3 23:17 22:5, 22, 25 4, 17, 21 96:1, 103:1, 21 25:5 26:10 23:2, 10, 20 17 97:9, 15, 18, 104:20 105:9 56:2 81:9 24:1 25:10 22 98:5, 7, 22 crimes 35:10, 10 107:12, 12 26:3, 9, 20, 25 99:6, 9, 12, 18 76:13 103:5 Dean 74:12, 16 27:12, 16, 20 100:15 104:21 104:4, 5 77:12 101:3 28:12, 15, 22, 24 105:5, 8 106:5, criminal 5:7 102:9 29:7 30:14, 20 9, 14, 20 107:8 13:1 14:5, 23 Dear 104:15 31:19 33:1, 20 108:3, 17 109:2, 16:6 18:19 deaths 77:14 34:16 35:6, 22 10, 12, 18, 20 23:14 26:11 December 60:12 36:3, 12, 14, 24 110:4, 5, 8 31:3 37:12 111:14 37:2, 4 38:5, 14, 111:3, 7, 17, 19, 38:2 41:4, 23, decide 10:21, 22 18, 21, 23 39:7, 22 24 42:1 44:12, 29:9 58:10 10, 12, 15, 20, 23 Courthouse 1:1 20 54:1, 8, 22 60:2 61:17, 20 40:6, 9 41:11 courtroom 8:21 55:3 56:25 80:22 85:19 42:15, 25 44:7 courts 14: / 4 57:4, 7 69:9, 18 88:3 45:5, 8, 11, 15, 15:2, 4 17:22 90:13 92:4, 12, decided 13:3 20 46:6, 23 20:17 21:6 15 93:5 94:19 25:5 84:6, 25 Page: 7 EFTA01070726 sor & Associates Repotong and Trinctipmis, Inc. 101:14 102:19 denied 10:2 developments 105:14, 16 110:25 30:19 101:24 111:11 108:6, 11, 20 decides 85:2 108:13 device 100:7 discretion 7:6 deciding 81:3 deny 10:25 DEXTER 2:14 8:5, 8 18:9 85:13 29:1 41:9 47:1 3:10 37:20 44:21 decision 26:5, 6 59:17 67:25 difference 24:12, 55:1,5, 10 30:9 43:7 Department 13 42:19, 22 56:12 63:2, 4, 65:15 69:8 4:20 5:6 28:6 84:12 10 79:24 80:6, 85:7, 2/ 86:4 69:21 101:1, 2 differences 8, 11, 13, 18, 21, 87:16, 21 109:17, 24 18:10 22 81:5, 25 decisions 19:3 111:2, 16 different 31:1 82:4, 19 83:15, 44:3 110:24 departments 59:16 100:10 18, 23 84:10, 15 deemed 41:13 69:22 difficult 75:12 85:9, 24 86:1, 6 45:4 76:23 deposition 11:3 directing 47:16 88:13, 23 97:20, 88:24 depositions direction 79:25 25 101:1, 7, 10, deep 24:12 40:14 49:12 101:22 23 defamatory 7:16 50:6 63:14 disagree 35:5 discuss 18:10 defend 22:11 deprivation 56:7, 23 63:5 19:7 22:3 27:2 defendant 17:4 63:25 disagreement 31:21 77:9 31:3 57:5 71:3 deprive 57:2 68:11 discussed 18:5 96:15 108:24 deprived 63:18, disallowed 12:16 70:14 73:9 defendant's 21 disappear 100:7 discussing 96:16 derivative 16:22 disapproval 37:22 70:16 defense 16:20 described 96:6 84:13 110:10 18:3 20:2, 22 97:4 disasters 25:16 discussion 27:7 23:14 31:22 designed 69:16 disclose 30:22 43:23 64:25 34:21 52:3 despite 70:12 disclosed 16:14 65:3 62:1 76:25 detection 69:24 34:3 discussions 98:24 70:6 96:1 104:3 disclosure 20:7 19:13 25:18 defer 34:6 35:19 detention 91:8 29:19 41:18 31:10, 11 37:18 deference 92:17 93:2 disclosures 62:5 109:23, 25 determination 49:6, 7, 10, 13 disposed 43:15 110:23 44:5 46:4 53:17, 18, 22, 23 dispositions definitive 79:18 81:13 98:10 discover 71:17 101:5 delay 9:8 93: / 7 99:6 discoverability dispositive 40:16 deliberate 32:23 determinations 29:24 dispute 55:22 61:8 49:16 discovered 56:14 deliberately determine 19:1 92:22 disputed 44:18 108:23 79:6 discovery 11:2 46:18 deliberateness determined 40:17 41:7, 8, disputes 86:15 33:16 76:11 17 42:7 44:17, disregard 74:3 deliberative determining 17:3 22 46:13 48:20, dissatisfied 67:14 detriment 37:1 20 54:10, 13, 17, 82:12 84:5 86:8 delivered 78:4 detrimental 19, 23 55:6, 23 disseminate delve 39:24 33:15 56:14, 16, 18 17:11 28:3 demonstrate develop 38:9 57:22 59:11, 13, disseminated 57:12 developing 20 62:21, 24 28:9 34:4 21:24 63:13 64:6 Page: 8 EFTA01070727 *pot...[ sor & Associates anti Tr2o.criptio2, Ina dissemination EAST 2:7 encouraging 61:9, 25 65:8 27:17 ecstatic 50:2 20:17 81:14, 24 108:24 DISTRICT 1:1, 1 EDWARDS 2:3, enforce 89:16 Epstein's 30:4 12:15, 18 55:14, 3 3:13, 14 5:2 enforced 54:7 32:7 103:2 21 60:12, 15 9:4, 5, 19, 24 89:12 equally 80:3 71:3, 5, 5, 7 10:25 28:24, 25 enforcement Eric 73:4 74:24 89:8, 11, 29:13 31:4 18:11 96:25 escape 4:16 18 95:6 32:9 33:11 engage 15:19 ESQ 2:3, 6, 8, 14, docket 13:2 36:23 38:25 37:23 44:21 14, 19, 22 Doctrine 82:18 39:2, 5, 9, 11, 14 55:19 81:14 essence 63:1 doctrines 79:15 40:4, 5, 8 41:15 engaged 69:23 essential 14:17 document 40:18 42:24 43:3 engineered essentially 7:14 63:15 68:8 45:1, 7, 10, 13, 110:20 35:8 86:5 107:21 110:20 16, 22 46:20, 24 engineering 89:20 96:7 documents 47:5, 14 58:8, 108:25 103:23 111:15 13:16 22:9 11, 11 111:21 enjoin 88:15 establish 48:15 23:5 24:8 48:8 effect 15:9 ensure 96:9 57:9 51:23 99:5 69:14 100:19 ensuring 96:9, establishment DOE 1:1 3:4, 4 105:12 19 97:2 74:19 63:19, 19 76:18, effectuate 100:2 enter 49:25 et 91:9 18 77:25, 25 efforts 50:22, 23 83:3 88:18 ethical 14:13 103:6, 6 104:13, 51:10, 16 53:5 105:11, 14 evader 6:6 14, 15, 17, 22 95:24 96:9 106:16 107:8 event 43:1 69:4 106:2, 3 107:24, 97:2 98:24 entered 29:24, 71:21 94:9 24 99:1, 7 109:6 25 106:17 events 95:6 doing 19:21 eight 72:13 107:22 everybody 8:6, 21:5 28:20 either 7:6 33:2, enters 84:1 20 81:15 96:21 5 41:8 48:22 entire 71:20 evidence 16:12 door 7:25 54:4 63:7 entities 69:25 17:13 26:15 doubt 76:13 87:16 96:15 entitled 50:24 29:21 31:13 drafted 73:23 El 13:3 52:2, 3 53:9 47:17 49:21 drafting 110:14 electronically 54:17, 22 91:7, 76:11 85:3 drawing 75:16 110:3 23 101:13 evidentiary 99:4 drugs 107:12, 13 eleemosynary 109:3, 5, 6, 22, eviscerated dry 22:13 28:21 25 110:23 77:24 due 34:10, 19 Eleventh 12:8, entitlement exactly 25:4 35:12 52:5 13 13:12 28:17 59:24 57:1, 4, 4, 8 64:2 email 59:2 entrusted 82:21 60:5 64:17 duke 50:19 emails 30:4 envisions 49:14 71:25 74:25 duties 14:9 15:2 35:16 66:16 Epstein 9:11 77:11, 22 83:7 employ 44:17 11:23 13:18 85:10 101: / / <E> employees 69:21 29:3, 25 30:8 104:22 earlier 32:2 enacted 15:16 31:16 33:4, 9, examine 24:8 72:3, 19 94:8 encourage 10:4 14, 16 35:9 example 13: / / 102:20 33:5 88:25 36:19 37:/, 4 16:18, 24 24:6 earliest 75:9 encouraged 42:13 43:24 28:2 61:22 early 110:15 26:12 45:25 55:15, 21 64:23 72:15 Page: 9 EFTA01070728 84:22 96:12 411k sor & Associates potong and Tea...inn.. Inc. extra 111:5 105:3 108:/, 9 46:18 59:10 107:7 extremely 97:21 110:17 69:8 82:13 exception 30:25 faith 10:22 89:17 90:21, 25 excess 106:12 <F> 22:19 60:1 91:4 109:20 exchanged 13: / 7 FAA 25:8, 9, 19 102:13 110:3 excluded 93:10 face 4:22 8:12, fall 45:2 97:10 filed 11:22, 23 exclusively 16, 23 59:7 familiar 30:24 21:17 26:13 82:21 facilitate 25:17 far 35:15 40:16 28:6 34:25 exculpatory 57:5 fact 5:7 10:1 57:19 67:4 40:10 44:14, 23 excuse 15:5 31:10 42:12 75:13 78:9 45:14, 16, 18 execute 77:20 43:14, 24 45:24 89:17 90:9 53:20 55:20 executed 77:24 50:10 52:19 95:1 97:22 63:8 68:8 82:9 53:6 55:18 98:20 99:2 70:11 72:14 executive 84:17 56:8 61: / 7, 21, 102:3, 21 73:1 75:2 97:25 23 63:5 69:17 103:11 109:23 82:22 83:22 exercise 7:6, 9 73:10 76:5, 9, FARMER 2:3 86:1 87:10 8:18 63:10 14, 24 85:17 fashion 35:13 89:10 90:13 82:18 85:24 91:1 98:12, 19 favor 26:19 93:5, 21 94:20 86:6 97:25 102:8 104:11 73:17 101:17 95:8 96:18 exercised 83:23 106:8 111:1 favored 81:6 98:9 100:14 86:1 88:23 factor 50:16 FBI 16:23 70:7 files 54:14, 18 101:23 109:6 factors 75:21, 84:25, 25 85:5 60:/, 9 90:17 exercising 63:3 25 78:16 96:25 filing 55:14 80:11 81:25 facts 6:8, 9 feared 90:7 71:22 72:9 101:10 8:11 10:18, 18 fears 96:14 77:7, 8, 15 exert 98:25 40:1, 3, 21 42:9, February 59:6 86:11 88:21 exhibits 45:19 9, 19, 21 43:2, 4, Federal 1:1 92:4 94:14 47:8, 9 76:17 5, 9, 23 44:6, 14 14:23 18:11 98:23 100:7 exist 31:7 45:3, 12, 14, 14, 37:20 54:11 finally 42:9 88:24 97:23 18 46:7, 8, 19 71:1 76:6 77:7, find 14:22 existence 67:21 47:3 58:9, 12, 16 78:1 81:16 25:11, 13, 23 87:6 15, 21, 23 59:3, 86:14 95:12 31:6, 25 59:14, exists 76:9 9 75:8, 23 103:4, 5 21 72:20 104:21 expedited 50:5 108:13 federalism 18:10 finding 5:20 105:18 factual 34:11 federally 81:24 42:4, 4 43:6, 8 explain 34:17 35:4, 7 56:10 feel 4:11 9:7 45:17 47:6 60:6, 10 73:15 99:5 56:7 98:12 explains 97:1 factually 10:8 feeling 42:20 finds 88:20 expression failure 40:2 feels 7:21 98:22 84:12 88:15 field 37:12 fine 38:21 39:3, extant 54:8 fair 38:17 56:21 Fifth 15:12, 12 4, 9 68:10 86:12 64:1 100:17 20:10 74:11, 21 first 4:1, 4, 7 extensive 17:24 fairly 100:4 77:12, 17 101:2, 5:22 8:2, 4, 10 extent 29:10 fairness 52:4, 5, 3, 4 102:9, 10 9:14 12:19 80:25 88:19, 23 9, 13 53:6 figure 4:2 13:8 17:16 109:2 57:21, 22 63:23 10:12 60:8 49:5, 11 52:15, extinguish 77:21 86:24 87:25 file 35:1 39:16 23 53:16 55:11 88:5, 8 100:13 45:11, 11, 13 58:4, 7 63:10 Page: 10 EFTA01070729 64:15 76:5 lkir sor & Associates tipormg and Trss.tiptio, Ina forward 50:4 46:11 61:19 49:10 51:8 92:22 59:4 82:13 106:5 54:3 56:4, 9 fish 59:20 88:9, 9, 25 give 11:14 14:8 59:8 60:23 fishing 59:13 101:22,24 16:23, 25 18:17, 66:21 69:1, 13 FISTOS 2:3 105:16, 18, 19 25 24:14, 17, 21 75:7, 15, 17 fits 23:25 25:20 found 31:15 38:12 39:18 78:20 85:4 five 60:18 four 6:11 53:20 44:5 61:22 87:14 88:13, 25 75:20, 25 78:10, 70:13 72:15 78:20 90:8 99:2 12, 15 87:4 fourth 76:24 84:22 94:20 105:5, 21, 23 92:6 107:13 frank 19:13, 15 95:7 96:12 107:10 108:4 flood 87:15 23:24 25:18 102:4 107:6 109:1 110:3, 16 101:17 102:13 frankly 5:21 108:10, 14 Good 3:3, 7, 11, Florida 1:1, 1, 1, 66:24 74:14 110:24 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 1 2:4, 11, 16, 20, Friday 1:1 given 14:6 21, 23 4:8, 9 23 4:21 5:2 frivolous 22:15 15:25 16:9 11:19, 21 16:17 13:19 14:14 66:25 102:6, 7, 25:2, 24 43:9 22:19 38:1 55:15, 21 60:12, 13 53:18 66:17, 18 47:19 56:12 15 71:7 112:3, front 8:22 71:11 76:15 59:25 102:12 7, 8 58:25 60:22 80:25 84:3 111:24 focus 40:7 77:3 101:19 gosh 60:8 focusing 33:8 full 54:13 73:7, go 3:25 10:17 government folder 18:1 8 92:12 105:13, 21:3 23:11 4:15 17:6, 21, 20:12 16 108:2 109:25 32:19 37:16 22, 24 18:4, 12, follow 21:5, 7 function 8:18, 42:7 45:20 14, 16, 20, 22 84:15 92:23 24 25:15 48:20 50:11, 12, 19:6 24:8, 24 followed 29:18 functions 14:10 13 52:20, 24 27:20, 22 28:2 footnote 71:20 82:20 65:13 69:19 30:1, 3, 5, 10 footnotes 71:16 further 11:14 75:14 78:10 31:2, 16, 23, 24 force 62:17 38:8 60:23 84:6 88:8, 9 32:5 33:8, 14, forced 59:9 61:5 69:19 94:4 97:9, 22 21 34:11, 18 foregoing 112:10 future 111:24 102:21 103:11, 37:21 38:7, 12 form 67:8 15 39:6,8, 11, 13 formal 83:22 <G> goes 14:18 41:20 44:10 86:11 88:21 gain 32:17 26:18 27:5 45:23 46:9 89:23 92:9, 13, gatekeeper 8:6, 44:1 70:22 49:8 50:10, 18, 14, 25 94:6 11 72:14 21,24 51:14, 19 96:18 98:23 gatekeeping going 3:24 4:2 52:12, 13, 21, 25 103:20 8:18 6:2, 3 7:3, 20 53:1, 19 57:1, 6, formally 83:25 gates 101:17 11:12, 12, 14 13, 23 58:14, 22 89:22 General 18:9 17:11 18:18 59:7, 16 60:6 formulation 85:6 28:7 73:4 19:9 27:24 61:24 62:13, 14 FORT 2:4 79:24 80:6, 8, 30:10 31:15, 25 63:7 64:3, 5 forth 21:18 18 81:2 83:15 33:15, 18 34:6 65:7 66:10 27:5 32:16 106:25 110:12 36:7 37:25, 25 67:19, 24 70:2, 40:23 68:9 generally 21:18 38:6, 6 39:15, 12 71:9, 13 75:20 86:21 generated 35:16 16 40:3 42:21, 72:7, 18, 22 forum 5:11 getting 23:15 23 43:1 44:22 73:16 74:12, 21, 33:1 42:7 47:1, 10 48:23 23 76:21 77:13, Page: II EFTA01070730 20 78:4, 25 102 sor & Associates pocong and I guy 6:6 •w'tu., Ina 58:6 61:23 HOWELL 2:8, 10 79:11 82:19 62:2, 16 63:12 3:15 83:20, 23, 25 <H> history 72:24 hundreds 51:21 84:6, 24 85:24 habeas 54:18, 73:7 hybrid 44:13 86:7 88:1, 16, 19 55:9 Hold 86:18 54:1 55:5 17, 22 92:19 hail 86:6 Holder 73:4 hypothetically 93:21, 24 95:15 half 31:17 holding 74:21 33:6 56:6 98:12 100:12 hand 61:3 75:19, 22 101:8, 22 102:1, hands 26:1 57:6 holds 74:16 <I> 23 103:13 happened 10:12, hominem 6:10 identified 76:6 104:12 106:2 13 30:6 77:22 honest 19:13 84:3 107:25 108:22 97:24 102:9 Honor 3:7, 17, ignore 104:23 109:4 110:21 happens 27:1 21 4:8 9:5, 6 illegal 61:13 government's happy 14:7 11:7 13:22 106:1, 6, 10, 13, 27:21 32:6 22:3, 21 50:4, 12 28:17, 23, 25 16, 22 107:1, 3, 33:2, 24 40:2 harassment 4:25 29:1 34:5, 24 5, 7, 14, 19, 23 53:5 65:2, 4, 25 hard 78:22 35:23, 24 36:11, 108:20 69:6 74:3, 13 harm 42:11 16 37:10 38:17 immunity 15:13, 87:16 100:19 44:2 90:8 39:2, 4, 5 40:5 20 16:10 18:2/ 101:6 104:6 Hawley 13:3 41:15 44:4 31:9 Grand 12:14, 22 head 44:23 47:14, 19 49:5 Immunization 23:6 27:5, 13, hear 4:6 11:17 53:8, 15, 25 15:24 17 28:3 35:17 33:22 71:24 55:7, 10 56: / / Immunized 15:23 66:12, 19, 22 78:19, 24 103:13 58:1, 3, 8 65:14 impair 79:23 67:16, 21 heard 58:13 66:1, 14 67:3, 80:7, 17 83:14, grant 11:13 63:3, 6 67:2 11 68:20, 22 16, 17 84:10 64:15 81:20 84:5 69:3 72:6 75:3, 100:25 granted 11:1 93:13 11 76:4 79:4, 5, impairment 81:5 21:22 30:11 HEARING 1:1 22 80:14 81:8 impairs 80:5 grappling 109:19 48:24 65:11 82:5 83:12 impinge 80:20 great 39:14 59:4 81:21 90:6, 14 84:16, 22 85:11, 84:14 ground 42:2 91:8, 8 92:11 15, 22 86:17 impinges 85:20 grounding 93:1, 2, 7, 10, 13, 87:4 88:14 implicate 66:7 103:25 16 99:4 111:25 89:6, 14 90:20 implicated 66:24 guess 38:6 heart 32:20 91:17 92:6 import 18:8 44:8 47:21 held 12:10, 24 93:8 95:11, 20, importance 56:15 59:22 29:14 23 96:3, 4, 12 23:23 25:24 64:18, 20 65:19 help 48:15 97:14, 17 98:21, 26:7 68:24 95:17 51:11, 23 110:21 21 99:10, 17 important 19:12 106:5 helpful 53:11 100:8 109:9, 14, 24:23 25:15, 19 guided 79:14 59:18 60:3 61:7 15, 16 111:12, 21 26:9, 9 33:18 guidelines 14:11 helps 103:24 HONORABLE 62:12 69:10, 12, guidepost 79:18 Herman 15:11 1:1 24 79:8 80:1 20:9 honoring 27:24 impose 106:9, 14 guilt 16:8 hey 27:23 hope 50:13 impossible 103:4 guilty 14:23, 25 44:16 108:11 105:24 improper 8:23 34:12, 19 35:9 highly 28:18 hopefully 37:6 85:9 47:25 50:16 improperly 82:15 Page: 12 EFTA01070731 *roam sor & Associates g and •, ' • inactions 32:6, 8 18 87:24 89:16, inside 66:22 12:5, 19, 24 33:3 21 90:6 91:9 insistence 33:17 13:7, 12 21:18, include 96:22 92:20 93:1 instance 8:5, 6 20, 22, 23 22:2 Included 35:3 94:13 95:25 12:19 13:8 26:4 30:19 74:18 96:14, 16 98:3 Institute 24:6, 10 invalidate 33:13 includes 57:22 individuals 84:4 instrument 88:21 61:12 including 11:2 86:5 91:23 Insurance 13:4 investigated inconsistent 92:21 96:10 intend 17:12 96:23 71:20 97:1, 4 99:1 26:1 36:25 investigating incorrect 16:14 induce 33:5 108:21 16:24 67:18, 20 46:20 ineffective 20:22 intended 21:19 84:24 incriminating inform 96:7 54:5 73:25 investigation 16:7 information intending 46:16 5:12 6:20, 24 inculpatory 16:2, 16:23 19:22 intent 28:21 13:1 18:23 7 29:20 30:9 82:24 60:17, 19, 24 independent 32:3, 9, 10, 15 interest 12:10 69:24 70:6 44:12 55:4 41:23 43:10 29:4 57:10, 13, 95:18 96:2 101:7 47:7, 25 48:3, 19 104:4, 4, 16, 18 independently 12, 14, 21 51:1, interest.' 12:12 investigative 34:14 7, 17, 21 52:2, 3, interested 71:24 97:5, 7 indicate 67:22 14 53:1, 10 interesting 72:4 invite 34:7 indicated 29:14 56:19 57:5, 17, 78:11 100: / / inviting 7:14, 17 indicating 46:1 23 58:18 59:18 102:8 invoke 57:8, 20 indicted 42:13 61:5, 6, 16 62:2, interfere 84:21 82:13 97:22 43:25 45:25 16 63: / / 64:3, 86:5 involve 84:17 89:23 5 65:1, 15, 17, interference involved 23:6 indictment 32:2 18, 20, 21, 22, 24 85:9 102:18 35:8 61:9 70:5 42:17 43:1 66:11 67:15 interpret 79:19 97:24 104:3 46:2 61:25 68:/, 3 92:15 87:13 involving 84:17 69:8 71:13, 23 94:6, 25 95:10, interpretation ironed 86:15 72:2, 9, 12, 17 13 97:11 98:13 55:16 79:12 irrelevant 42:10, 73:1, 19 74:1, 6, 105:9, 20, 21, 24 83:13 85:18 10 44:1 10 75:2, 5 108:22 87:9 Issue 5:23 6:1, 81:10 84:13, 14 infringement interpretations /, 8, 9 7:10 85:3 87:14 82:3 101:6 37:18 80:3 8:21 9:11 88:12 89:13, 24 infringing 80:12 interpreting 80:1 10:24 11:25 90:1, 14 91:13 initial 38:14 interrupt 24:2 12:20 22:2 92:3, 15, 20, 23, 41:18 49:6, 7, intervene 6:15 33:3, 19 34:5, 25 93:21 94:6, 13 53:17, 18, 23 7:12, 17 11:24 10, 10, 23 35:6, 8, 11, 16, 25 79:5 82:9 90:5, 12:15 22:24 15, 20 36:7 95:10 97:11 5 92:25 94:15 29:1 49:16 42:4 48:13, 20 100:8, 14, 21 Initially 79:12 intervened 29:3 53:16 55:11 102:12 103:14 initiated 32:23 intervening 3:18 56:3, 8, 10 105:15 input 81:22 90:4 61:20 63:25 indictments inquiry 5:21 intervenor 7:8 67:11 68:24 95:13 40:7 60:19, 24 intervenors 4:4 69:10 75:12 individual 54:6, insert 42:12 intervention 8:4 79:6 83:16 9 80:25 84:2, 10:2 11:18, 25 Page: 13 EFTA01070732 Itkpesor & Associates ttttt and .•, it. 99:20 108:18 July 53:21 58:6 51:5 53:10 lawsuits 7:23 109:18 70:10 72:5, 10 55:20 58:16 87:15 issued 14:14 91:18 59:18 60:2, 9 lawyers 3:19 20:18 109:17 jump 49:2 61:6 65:14 11:22 14:10 111:14 June 73:4 70:9 73:1 75:6, 15:3 18:19 issues 30:17 Jury 12:14, 22 11 78:8, 9 20:22 24:5 44:19 47:21 23:6 27:6, 13, 82:25 83:10 27:10 31:22 60:21 75:16 17 28:3 35:17 90:2, 23 91:2 32:7 33:4, 10 its 8:23 9:2 66:12, 19, 22 107:9 38:1 24:15 25:8 67:17, 22 107:15 knowing 42:6 lead 74:5, 10 50:21 82:9 Justice 5:6 9:9 knowledge 5:1 102:17 83:23 85:24 14:17 28:6 known 67:16 learn 32:21 88:23 100:2 38:4 62:14, 18 KORNSPAN 2:19 leave 75:23 101:10, 23 69:10, 18, 22 Kyl 72:23 73:3, led 70:11 78:3 100:1 8, 17, 20 74:4 LEE 2:14 3:7, < J> 101:1, 1 109:17, 110:11 111:7, 8, 10 11:5, 7 JACKSONVILLE 24 110:16 10 33:23 34:5, 23 2:11 111:2, 16 Kyl's 72:23 35:23 39:4 JAFFE 2:3 Justice's 4:21 110:11, 18 53:14, 15 55:7, jail 54:3 justified 10:9 9 56:11, 23 JANE 1:1, 1 3:4, justify 6:18 <L> 58:3, 8, 10, 12 4, 14 63:19, 19 label 46:14 59:1, 11, 17 76:18, 18 77:25, <K> labeled 40:12 62:9, 20 63:6, 25 82:10 103:6, keep 21:4 LAKE 2:8 17 64:23 67:1, 6 104:13, 14, 15, 25:25 111:10 Lakes 1:1 3, 10 68:7, 17, 17, 22 106:2, 3 keeping 23:24 language 69:19 20, 22 71:24 107:24, 24 78:22 70:3, 9, 14, 16, 72:5, 10 78:19, January 104:15 keeps 59:11 18, 19, 21 104:1, 19 79:3, 4 JAY 2:8, 10 KENNETH 1:1 80:14, 24 82:5 3:15 kick 42:16 lapsed 89:24 83:5, 12, 20 Jeffrey 9:11 kind 7:25 9:23, large 27:7 112:8 84:16 85:15, 22 42:13 24 11:13 16:1 late 20:19 86:19, 25 87:3, jeopardy 54:3 18:17 19:10, 14, latest 24:5 11, 23 88:14 57:13 22 26:7, 17 LAUDERDALE 89:5, 14 90:3, job 100:9 31:19 37:21 2:4 19 91:6, 14, 16 Johnson 1:1 40:6 42:1, 5 LAW 2:6 10:1 92:6, 14 93:8, Judge 5:19 7:5 44:10 46:14 13:6 18: / / 11, 14, 18, 23 8:19 13:5 25:5, 53:25 66:23 24:5, 6, 10 94:3, 5, 12, 22, 10 58:25 63:4 78:8 110:23 25:13, 14, 23 24 95:3, 11, 19, 65:9, 12 kinds 17:15 27:11 30:16 22 96:3 97:14, judgment 26:14 knew 43:16 37:12, 18 74:8 17 98:6, 21 40:12 42:3 111:2 78:9 96:25 99:10, 12, 16, 17, 45:6, 9 46:14, know 7:24 9:9 lawful 81:2 19 100:24 16, 22 58:20 10:5, 18, 18, 19 laws 61:20 102:12 103:17 judicial 54:15 17:14, 17 18:15, lawsuit 7:23 104:8 109:12, 86:13 19 21:25 22:3, 53:21, 24 89:10 14 111:1, 12, 18 16 27:3, 18, 21 90:17 91:4 Lefkowitz 3:19 33:24 40:17 Page: 14 EFTA01070733 * sor & Associates ItrpotIng and To. ctipfius. lee. legal 6:3 7:20 110:10 13 28:9 29:8, Melinda 1:1 42:4 44:5 local 45:2 46:17 11 46:19 64:20, 112:7, 17 48:13 55:12, 17 logically 74:17 22 66:13, 16, 19 member 5:3 56:7 79:6 long 14:16 42:8 68:1Z 15 memorandum 109:17 43:19 materials 19:17 110:13 legally 10:8 longer 25:1 23:11 25:2 mention 24:4 legislative 72:24 30:23 36:22 26:19, 21, 22 28:8 73:7 58:14 27:2, 18 28:3 mentioned LEHMAN 2:3 look 4:22 8:12, 37:1 61:1 35:15 73:24 Leonti 20:25 16 36:7, 9 60:1, 66:21 67:5 mere 22:9 letter 14:3 9 61:19 70:18 matter 11:2, 9 merely 71:13 60:21 73:3, 6, 72:4, 23 75:15 12:3, 6, 14, 25 merits 5:24 10, 20 104:14 100:22 102:8 13:12 22:23 22:8 31:20 110:12 111:8, 9 110:16, 17 52:4 60:15 33:2 39:25 letters 20:1 looked 14:21 84:1 86:13 message 7:3 27:2, 8 28:6 looking 48:9 96:17 109:15 method 41:5 32:13 37:9, 17 51:6, 17 77:7 111:3 MIAMI 2:16, 20 43:13, 18 looks 60:2 matters 3:25 middle 42:2 letting 6:9 lose 68:13 35:17 99:5 mind 58:14 59:8 liability 53:11 lost 23:1 maximum mindful 80:16 libelous 7:14, 15 lot 15:2 32:9 106:12 107:13 83:13 97:19 liberty 57:2, 10, 43:2 McAliley 13:5 minding 4:19 12, 18 low 26:16 mean 6:7 7:20 mini 7:18, 23 life 57:2, 10 18:7 24:1 minimum 78:14 66:15 <M> 27:20 29:7 minute 78:24 limbo 42:6 magically 103:20 41:14 55:22 107:11 limit 6:8 44:18 Magistrate 13:5 59:22 63:1 minutes 50:1 75:22 65:9, 12 68:1 73:6 missed 23:11 limitation 24:23 main 68:24 78:10, 11 79:16, mistake 103:8 89:23 69:4 100:24 16 80:15, 21 mistreated 62:3 limited 24:9, 9 making 21:12 97:6 106:24 misunderstood 25:14 44:3 60:10 108:6 100:18 line 22:1 23:18 103:8 meaning 47:8 molestation 9:10 58:5 75:16 malicious 7:1 79:15 87:9 molester 51:22 link 100:14 malpractice 95:10 78:2 litigate 10:24 20:23 meaningful moment 73:15 litigated 60:22 mandated 48:16 43:22 99:11 litigating 103:24 63:21 meaningless months 60:19 litigation 4:18, mandates 50:21 70:4 104:5 motion 4:13, 16, 19 5:14 6:4 manner 106:17 means 12:11 22, 24 9:7, 18, 7:17 9:25 10:4 March 53:19 41:5 59:13 21 11:1, 8, 13 17:10 30:6 Marcus 25:5, 10 94:5 97:11 12:15 13:16 72:20 84:18 MARIE 2:14 3:9 mechanisms 21:17 29:1 102:14, 16 MARRA :1, 1 44:18 34:8, 24, 25, 25 110:25 Maryland 56:24, media 17:11 35:18, 18 40:1, little 7:24 36:10 25 57:11 28:3 9, 9, 10, 12, 16 103:12, 16 material 17:15, meet 36:25 41:1 42:3 16 23:6, 8 27:6, 44:15, 24, 25 Page: 15 EFTA01070734 45:6, 9, 16 102 sor & Associates poong and Tr*.ctiptio, 78:12 98:18 notes 20:17 obviously 12:25 46:14, 17, 22 105:20 108:11 112:12 22:1 25:4 27:5 47:1, 5, 11, 13, 110:17 111:19 notice 46:15 28:14 73:25 15 49:19, 19 needed 29:14 59:16 60:6 104:10 59:10, 12, 13 needs 27:19 62:9 63:24 occur 94:10 63:1 64:9 65:7 68:15 80:16 65:8 90:3 91:7 occurred 8:22 66:9 67:12 negotiate 38:2 93:6 105:4 71:6 89:9, 11, 98:8, 9, 14 41:10 42:8 110:2 19 99:7 108:13 77:1 103:2 notices 76:15, occurring 35:17 motions 4:4, 5 negotiated 77:15 17 102:25 October 10:16 39:24 53:21 negotiating 16:9 notified 84:3 offended 7:21 move 21:9 46:3 77:5 90:15 96:5 offender 51:20 49:11 50:4 negotiation 19:2 notify 99:1 offense 89:19 59:4 86:17 43:14 number 3:25 offenses 37:19 101:22,23 negotiations 26:3 27:2 35:3 76:6 105:16, 17, 19 13:24 23:15, 17 60:13 74:24 offer 17:3 moving 20:20 25:25 30:25 92:21 94:21 105:7 109:19 23:4 31:2 34:1, 2, 22 95:7 100:10 offered 48:7 Mt 13:3 35:21 38:10 numerous 26:14 Office 13:19 84:1 47:17 48:10 < N> neighbor 6:5 <O> 60:16 64:25 name 5:13 7:13 neither 67:25 object 21:20 81:19 85:1, 2, 35:12 never 4:18 5:1, 48:22 83:4 10 88:23 94:20 names 27:3, 4 5 10:2 16:14 102:18 95:1 96:22 28:8 18:1 19:24 objecting 28:19 106:15 109:16 narrow 44:18 32:17 51:4, 5 objection 48:23 111:13 48:8 75:19 78:6 60:7 70:5, 7, 14 110:5 officer 27:15 narrowed 47:3 101:25 107:15 objections 79:25 86:13 narrowly 69:16 new 21:13, 15 65:11 84:8 officers 69:21 105:19 36:8, 8 objective 10:6 offshoot 41:4 Natural 110:1 news 28:3 obligated 35:5 44: / / nature 60:20 nice 100:9 62:6 65:8 oh 26:23 60:8 NE 2:15 Ninth 20:20 67:24 70:1 Okay 13:23 near 25:6 75:18 21:1 obligates 51:10 14:3 34:16 111:24 non 13:25 20:7 obligation 5:3 39:7, 12, 15, 20 necessarily 36:21 43:11, 15, 21:7 56:18, 19 40:8 41:22 17:14 36:1 17 48:7 52:1, 69:20 78:5 45:20, 21 46:20, 54:10 97:6 18 61:12 77:1, obligations 15:2 25 47:2, 5, 15 necessary 55:18 23 81:12 83:4 16:18 27:24 55:8 65:5 56:13 78:10 88:18 99:3 53:5 56:16 67:10 68:21 need 10:17 101:20 102:4 67:24 70:8 77:6 86:19 11:15 17:14 103:3 107:21 obtain 19:6 92:7 95:17 26:15, 16 31:22 nonparty 9:19 20:1 52:25 99:18 111:17 42:2, 3 55:24 Notary 1:1 108:21 old 15:12 61:17 62:8 note 34:7 55:10 obtained 17:20 once 67:14 63:4 64:18 91:21 obvious 70:16 72:18 85:25 65:19 67:19 noted 35:11 104: / / 108:8, 9 96:10 97:3 69:18 76:8 Page: 16 EFTA01070735 ongoing 86:23 402 sor & Associates poong and Tr*.ctiptio, ought 6:13, 16 patently 108:8, 9 plaintiff 19:5, 25 89:4 7:2, 3 22:24 path 50:12, 13 26:23 36:17 open 7:20 25:17 26:12 patient 43:18 plaintiffs 4:13 19:13, 15 23:24 74:5 PAUL 2:6 3:15 6:17 9:8 17:9, 25:17 101:16, 18 outcome 29:5 pending 4:12 17 21:19 26:1, opening 7:25 outside 6:10 110:25 111:3 13 40:1 48:1 opinion 13:5 57:10 106:15 people 6:10 56:3, 17 60:3 18:6, 13 82:17 overruled 30:14 24:14, 21 88:25 64:9 66:4 109:18 111:4, 5 65:12 97:13, 22 102:18 68:18 85:18 opinions 20:18 overturned 10:3 percent 14:22, 98:9, 15 46:8 24 27:9 61:4 plausible 80:4 opportunity <P> period 90:5 play 86:2 87:24 38:8 41:7 90:8 p.m 1:1 92:24 94:14 plea 14:16, 24 101:13, 19 page 46:2 61:24 permission 15:3, 7, 14, 19, 102:5 107:16, pages 51:21 30: / / 22 16:5, 9 17:3 25 108:2, 15 Palm 1:1, 1, 1 permissive 7:7 19:1, 11 20:3, oppose 11:8 2:23 112:4 8:3, 3 10:1 12:5 18, 24 23:15, 17 65:7 panoply 18:5 permit 52:14 25:25 26:8 opposed 37:5 papers 22:20 permitted 47:10 30:24 31:2, 9, 50:9 23:3, 4, 13, 22 person 9:17 11 33:25 34:2, opposing 66:11 part 14:17 93:3, 9, 12, 15, 22 35:21 37:13 opposition 67:12 23:13 25:7 19 95:7 38:9 43:13 OPR 60:15 62:7 64:15 personal 4:24 46:3 64:25 options 77:9 69:24 75:14 personnel 95:24 77:9 81:11 orchestrating 80:22 82:19 persons 96:8 84:2, 7, 8 61:10 participants person's 73:11 pleading 5:15 order 7:10 8:21 78:23 persuasive 6:5, 19 8:12, 16 10:24 14:8 participating 74:15, 22 10:19 70:10 20:3 22:11, 24 3:24 4:2 pertains 56:24 pleadings 9:6 30:11 35:2 particular 9:7 Petitioners 1:1 10:14 35:/, 25 40:20 44:18 13:13 14:12 2:2 11:9 35:4 63:8 64:12 47:16 49:25 27:19 34:5 53:17 55:24 67:11 70:13 51:14 54:18, 20, 70:11 75:23 68:10 79:9 pleas 14:25 24 55:5 57:8 99:24 100:20 85:5 91:17 Please 3:3, 6, 8 59:19 61:16 101:15, 17 phase 53:11, 12 11:19 53:16 63:10 64:4 102:23 105:11 108:6 79:2 105:12, 14 107:9 110:22 philosophy plenty 105:9 ordered 30:6 particularly 18:2 35:20 plethora 29:16 62:21, 22 81:8 Phone 1:1 point 11:11 orderly 86:10, 15 parties 17:1 phrase 95:15 22:6 30:16, 18 ordinarily 40:15 19:14 32:23 96:4 32:1 46:12 63:15 110:24 38:16 47:9 pick 20:16 56:12 58:16 ordinary 40:19, party 4:17 pieces 45:22 59:9 60:7, 14 19 49:4 50:7, 19:25 24:7, 18 pilots 25:8, 18 63:6 70:13 15, 17 53:7 95:5 28:10 place 5:22 71:18, 25 72:3 original 44:2 passed 50:20 plain 69:19 74:7 75:9 originally 111:14 99:23 79:15 76:21 77:10, 16, 18 80:16 83:24 Page: 17 EFTA01070736 *poling sor & Associates ihnd •oplioa. Ina 103:7, 21 preliminary 25:14, 23 31:1 3, 4, 8, 15, 16 104:11 105:6, 49:16 76:3 77:5 38:9 67:13, 13 59:5 64:2 13 106:25 prepared 36:2, 3 privileged 16:13 65:10 67:14 110:19 46:2 58:18 22:9 23:5, 22 69:10, 18 72:1 points 8:9 61:24 75:6 25:17 34:2 75:13 77:10 police 8:21 77:20 105:12, privileges 25:12, 84:21 86:10 policing 9:2 17, 18 13 97:6, 7 100:1, 4 policy 18:13 prerogatives probably 44:21 102:21 103:11 19:3 38:3 81:2 46:13 53:19 106:18 110:16 portion 68:6 PRESENT 2:18 78:12, 21 79:8 produce 48:22, portions 30:3 48:13 69:1 82:6 24 50:5 51:8 68:7 76:1, 12, 24 problem 25:22 56:19 57:23 position 22:5 presentation 32:15 37:10 59:19 63:11 27:21 33:24 71:25 101:25 99:24 64:5 108:21 42:15 48:11 presented 58:23 procedural product 13:11, 51:12 56:7, 21 61:25 98:20 39:24 107:7 25 14:5 18:6, 62:15 66:6 presenting 35:6 109:14 14 21:8, 21 69:7 70:2, 19 press 67:17 procedurally 23:5, 13 24:11, 72:19 74:3 74:7 105:7 107:4, 14, 14, 15, 19, 21 81:23 85:18 presumably 19, 23 25:22 29:8, 10, 91:25 100:5, 19 82:13 Procedure 54:12 12, 15, 16, 19, 20 101:12 103:24 presume 42:15, 95:12 30:13, 18, 23 104:7 109:23 23 60:1 Procedures 65:10 111:16 pretrial 91:8 54:15 110:2 production possession 93:1 proceed 18:12 40:18 63:15 17:19 56:20 prevent 19:10 49:4 50:2 Professional possibility 77:25 25:16 60:23 105:6 60:16 112:7 87:19 previous 30:6 proceeded 71:8 professors 78:9 possible 105:7 36:23 proceeding 6:17, program 25:7 possibly 86:23 previously 11:23 24 7:11 9:20 prominent 79:9 87:17 principle 19:20 10:24 12:22 proper 8:24 posture 56:5 59:15 62:10, 11, 17:13 44:8 85:23 potentially 83:17 13 54:8, 8, 19 55:3, properly 58:19 power 106:14 principles 35:12 4 82:23 84:9 property 12:1 powerful 63:20 prior 30:10 86:23 87:6 57:3, 10, 12, 18 Powers 82:18 55:13 86:3 89:4 91:7 92:7 63:18 practically 37:11 88:20, 24 98:23 100:15 proposed 37:22 practicing 37:12 prison 81:24 proceedings 4:3 50:10 pre 71:13 73:19 107:10, 12 54:9 63:24 proposition 20:6 74:1, 6 91:13 private 5:13 90:4 105:5 29:17 31:7 97:7 105:15 privilege 12:20, 112:10 42:18, 20 106:25 precedent 8:25 24 13:9, 11, 15 process 6:22 prosecute 81:23 precisely 110:20 18:18 19:4 7:25 15:3, 7, 20, 82:1 85:14, 20, predicate 55:18 20:7 21:8, 22, 23 16:9 34:10, 21 87:17, 21 prefer 36:9 25 22:4, 7, 10, 20 35:12 37:14, 88:3, 5, 15, 16 prejudice 9:8 14, 17 23:16, 25 16 43:19 46:13 103:5 108:14 24:11, 16, 18 48:20 49:17 prosecuted 71:4 52:5 53:3 57:1, 81:16 Page: 18 EFTA01070737 *poling sor & Associates and Traa.ctiptio, Ina prosecuting 76:12 105:22 24:20 44:9 28:18 38:1 57:24 109:7 48:17 52:11 55:23 70:15 prosecution provide 15:18 55:16, 17 66:14 82:7 108:25 13:25 14:5 48:8 51:1 69:5, 12 72:6 reasonable 10:7 36:21 43:11, 15, 61:14 65:8 75:7 78:9, 11 74:19 76:12 17 48:7 52:1, 109:21 110:4 81:1 97:20 79:10 80:3 18 61:12 69:25 provided 51:21 98:7 102:20 96:19 101:9 70:24, 25 71:1, 61:16 64:23 107:2 reasonably 4 74:18 77:1, 73:2 79:18 questions 60:13 72:16 23 81:12 82:20 109:21 75:24 102:22 reasoning 23:20 83:4 85:4, 8 provides 71:12 QUINNEY 2:6 reasons 4:16 88:18 89:7, 9, proving 31:23 quite 22:12 18:13 26:3 18 96:2 99:3 61:7 58:21 59:15 48:18 53:4, 8 101:20 102:4, provision 43:12 69:15 78:16 64:4 75:3 76:8 24 103:3 107:21 50:20 71:10, 15 quote 69:20 rebuttal 110:18 prosecutor 20:2, 89:3, 5, 15, 15 70:23 74:17 recall 58:7 24 21:2 76:25 91:21, 22 79:21, 22, 25 76:17 110:9 96:21 provisions 101:6 recalling 105:20 prosecutorial 73:24 79:7, 19 Quoting 72:12 receive 16:19 79:24 80:13, 17, 100:10 73:21 74:17 30:11 51:16 21, 22 81:5 Public 1:1 5:15 64:2 82:3 83:14, 17 68:4 90:4 91:7 <R> received 60:21 84:10 88:13 92:7 111:15 raise 21:16 receiving 43:18 97:20 101:7 publicly 69:8 34:9, 15 Recess 79:1 103:4 purport 4:14 raised 12:21 reckless 6:25 prosecutors purpose 4:25 13:9 34:10, 14 recognized 9:6 23:17 28:7 9:8 17:6, 7, 8 35:25 60:7, 13 12:18 14:16 63:22 76:5, 10 18:25 24:7 67:4 102:6 15:13 102:11 91:3 103:8 purposes 11:15 raising 21:15 recognizing protect 12:23 44:8 92:17 52:6, 7 102:20 89:10 101:5 15:6 28:15 100:2 reach 43:6 46:4 record 43:4, 11 29:11 pursuant 54:23 74:25 45:22 47:7 protectable 92:18 reached 19:15 54:16 112:12 12: / / pursue 6:15 7:8 106:1 108:21 redact 30:9 protected 26:21 pushed 103:16 read 31:4 40:9 redacted 17:22, 34:3 57:9, 18 put 6:5, 18 71:16 74:13 23 30:3 64:19, 67:15 72:16 10:14 15:2 reading 80:5 21 68:8, 9, 16 87:1 21:7 36:4 38:1 real 22:2 39:25 refer 84:25 protecting 26:8, 58:20, 21 69:13 realize 8:13 reference 87:5 19 110:/3 really 5:17, 23 92:7 protection 15:25 putting 5:10 15:8 31:21, 22 referenced 94:1 24:20 91:19, 23 68:8 32:6 33:8, 10 95:12 96:19 puzzle 32:21 36:6 42:6 referred 29:22 protections 25:2 53:25 78:12 46:21 60:15 68:2 <Q> 103:14 106:21 refers 15:17 prove 26:17 question 13:15 108:11 refused 40:25 33:11 35:2 14:8 16:17 reason 4:23 49:9 60:3 64:10 18:15 21:14 18:18 20:12 refusing 61:14 Page: 19 EFTA01070738 *pog.og sor & Associates and Troowiptioo, Ina regard 22:8 remedy 32:20 resolve 26:10 revealed 32:5 110:25 33:12, 19 36:20 35:7 38:2 reversing 72:19 regarding 24:5 48:5 51:25 55:12 56:10 review 54:15 33:25 35:18 52:17, 17 53:12 84:1 98:3, 18 reviews 54:16 regardless 33:9 61:11 102:2 resolved 14:23, ribbon 61:2 55:2 105:25 24 55:15 right 3:25 4:15 regulations 4:21 remember 13:20 resort 88:6 8:7 9:3 11:4, REINHART 2:22 21:11 51:18 Resources 110:1 11, 17, 24, 25 3:21, 22 4:6, 8, render 82:17 respect 91:3 12:3, 6, 25 10 5:19 8:1 repeatedly 48:2 92:1 13:12 19:19 9:14 10:15, 20, reply 39:6, 16, 19 respected 98:16 20:12, 13 21:2/ 23 11:10 report 5:4 25:8 respectfully 23:2, 10, 21 Reinhart's 11:8, 112:10 6:14 56:23 82:5 24:3, 13 28:17 16 Reported 1:1 respond 5:12, 29:7 30:20 reject 98:14 5:5 16 9:4 36:10 31:21 33:20 rejected 101:4 reporter 78:21 38:16, 25 46:17 35:22 36:11, 12 102:7 112:8 responded 5:17 37:2 38:5 relate 15:22 reporting 25:14 21:19 39:21, 23 40:6 34:20 represent 9:9 Respondent 1:1 46:6, 23 49:2, related 64:8 representation 2:13 17 53:6, 13 relates 11:25 60:11 responding 54:25 56:15 16:11 represented 32:12 57:16, 19, 20, 22 relatives 96:17 11:23 responds 39:8, 59:12 61:3 released 27:14 representing 11 62:23 63:22, 22, 90:10, 11, 15 13:18 response 8:10 23 64:7 65:1 relevant 33:10 request 21:20 10:20 34:8 66:8 67:1, 9 42:13 44:6, 6 40:14, 18 49:12, 41:19 46:21 68:12, 21, 23 47:17, 25 48:12 12 51:13 48:9 75:15 72:7, 15 74:20 50:17 58:6 105:13 111:13 responses 76:16 78:18 61:4, 23 62:2, requesting 8:3 17:21 32:11 79:3, 6, 10 16 63:12 64:2 requests 41:8 responsibilities 80:25 83:15, 22 93:25 104:2 48:21 50:5 97:5 86:23, 24 87:1, relief 9:23 62:24 63:14 responsibility 8, 18 88:1, 12, 32:20 33:12, 19 105:19 23:15 60:16 24 89:2 90:3, reluctant 11:13 require 50:8 96:19, 20 12 91:15, 19 rely 20:8 40:15 75:8 92:12 99:4 responsible 92:2 93:3, 6, 9, 47:10 70:21 requirement 77:14 95:24 10, 12, 15, 20 73:5, 6, 12, 16 101:8 96:8 97:2 97:15 99:9 75:21 106:7 requires 22:10 rest 27:9 100:13, 17, 20, relying 20:5 92:3 108:19 restatement 24:4 22, 23 101:5 30:21 requiring 26:23 result 15:4 103:7, 9, 10, 14 remaining 92:10 34:11 63:25 104:9 105:1, 3, remanded 12:17 reserve 11:12, resulted 13:24 4, 8 106:19 remarks 72:22 16 38:6 return 85:3 107:3, 15, 16 73:21 74:4 Residences 13:3 92:20, 24 94:15 108:10 109:10 110:11, 13 resolution 56:5, returned 81:10 111:19,22 remedial 99:23 14 102:1 returning 84:2/ Rights 9:12, 13 100:2 31:14, 25 32:2, Page: 20 EFTA01070739 18, 24 33:7, 17 02 sor & Associates poong and Trss.tiptio, Ina 66:22 sat 76:25 77:13 seeking 12:23 40:11 41:21 routinely 102:7 103:1 20:24 52:17 42:16 43:16, 19 ROY 2:19 3:17 satellite 9:24 54:15 57:2, 14 45:17 48:5, 16 37:5 10:4 seeks 89:16 50:22 51:9, 15, Rubin 52:23 saying 4:10 8:7, seen 19:24 25 52:8, 16, 22 rubric 25:21 8 12:2 15:12 31:17 54:6, 10, 13 Rule 7:7, 9 8:4 21:20 22:5, 19 Senate 72:24 55:12 56:4, 9 9:20 10:5 32:13 40:22 Senator 72:23, 57:25 60:4 11:24 12:11 44:1 45:5 50:1 23 73:3, 8, 17, 61:8 63:21 15:16, 16, 17 59:2 72:23 20 74:4 110: / /, 64:11 66:7 16:5, 11, 20, 21, 73:21 76:19 11, 18 111:7,8, 68:25 69:6, 9, 21 17:2 25:11 77:6 80:21, 24 10 11, 15, 17 70:1, 26:21 29:23 83:3, 12 94:8 send 7:3 18:14, 8, 23 71:3, 19, 41:18 42:25 102:25 105:15 16, 20 41:7 22 72:1, 8, 9, 11, 45:2 46:18 106:17, 21 81:24 13, 17, 25 73:19 49:8, 14 66:12, 107:9 110:12 sending 37:17 74:6, 9, 17 75:1, 16, 23, 24 67:23 says 12:9, 17 sends 24:8 4, 10 76:2, 15, 73:17 84:8 13:6 16:7 21:1 sense 54:1, 21 19, 20, 22, 22 95:12 99:21 24:10 51:14 sent 5:1 20:2 77:4, 10, 17, 19, 101:17 105:9 52:8, 23 69:20 24:24 43:13 21 78:5, 13, 17 108:7, 12 71:9, 21 88:4, 6 58:22 59:1 83:16, 21, 24 rules 4:21 6:7, 96:8 99:20 73:4, 10 102:24 84:20 85:6 23 14:12, 13, 14 101:16 102:17 104:14 110:11 86:2, 3, 11, 21 15:4, 18 28:10 104:8 sentence 36:22 87:13 88:20 29:21 49:5, 6, scenario 31:13 79:22 106:11, 89:1, 12, 16, 20, 22, 24 50:1, 2, 7, scope 21:24 13 107:10, 14, 18 25 90:18, 22 7, 16 53:8 33:12 sentenced 36:22 91:1, 12, 22 54:11 105:17 sealed 61:2 sentences 106:8 92:3 95:25 ruling 11:12, 15, 78:4 sentencing 96:5, 7, 10 97:3, 16 38:6 search 51:1 14: / / 3, 7, 12, 13, 21, rulings 111:23 seated 3:3 79:2 separate 34:23 23 98:11, 13, 16, run 52:21 Second 20:20 41:4 44:12 19, 22 99:23 running 92:18 41:16 61:9 55:3 70:13 100:6, 16 runs 77:2 63:13 Separation 82:18 102:11, 14, 25 secondly 35:14 series 20:18 103:/, 21 <S> 52:16 76:10 53:20 104:19, 20, 24 safeguards 15:5, section 45:21 serious 22:23 105:10, 22 9, 18 20:15 79:20 111:3 106:2 107:23 sake 98:8 see 19:14 served 67:16 108:7,23 110:14 SALT 2:8 31:18 33:21 serves 9:7 ripe 43:7, 8 sanction 6:2 39:17, 18 45:20 set 8:25 21:18 road 30:15 9:21 59:14, 20 66:15 52:18 58:9 75:16 sanctioned 7:2 72:24 78:1 75:20 86:21 robber 77:2 sanctions 5:7 82:2 95:22 102:3 106:3, 8 robber's 77:6 15:5 100:11 107:1 109:1 robbery 77:7 Santobello seek 9:23 20:3 setting 48:6 ROOM 2:7 14:18 20:11 32:21 33:13 52:1 52:20 54:6 Page: 21 EFTA01070740 seventies 15:11 02 sor & Associates poong and Tra•.tiptio, 76:20 91:14 squabble 58:25 69:23 81:13 sex 51:19 106:21 square 50:11 82:20 85:10 share 62:4, 5 situations 52:22 SREBNICK 2:19 86:7, 14 88:22 shared 66:20 six 73:20 stage 21:23 95:6 96:21 short 7:5 73:15 slanderous 7:13, 77:5 111:13 shortly 61:19 15 stages 76:3 statistics 14:21 show 6:25 7:10 Smith 107:9, 10, 82:9 110:15 statute 56:21 8:22 52:14 15 stake 29:4 69:13 70:20 61:11 76:8 somebody 59:15 103:23 79:14 80:4, 5 107:4 109:2, 4, 5 34:12 35:12 staking 100:5 95:4 98:17 showing 62:2 41:25 54:14, 18 stand 6:4 29:17 99:24 100:6 shown 27:3 57:2 67:16, 25 107:1 103:23 104:1, 2, 56:13 71:18 81:3, 4 standard 10:5, 6 6 shows 108:22 83:25 84:23 36:25 statutes 18:7, 8 side 38:15 86:8 89:19 standing 9:15, 79:16 40:21 65:2, 4, 90:10 91:6 16, 20 27:12, 16, statutory 52:7 25 111:6 96:12 98:1 19 29:11 90:24 55:16 56:18 sided 109:9 somewhat 64:8 91:4 73:23 79:12 sides 38:7 soon 12:20 stands 29:6 99:20 106:9, 12 50:19 13:8 24:16 31:6 stenographic signed 43:12 sorry 24:1 stark 52:11 112:12 78:3 95:14 41:10 49:9 starkly 48:13 stenographically significant 94:3 95:22 start 4:10 6:9 112:10 97:21 111:11 sort 5:11 6:2, 7:22 32:1 40:7 step 27:23, 25 significantly 17 7:4 47:20 46:1 68:25 77:5 49:5 12:11 14:19 48:19 starting 20:19, steps 77:3 similar 19:21 Sounds 39:14 19 stipulate 59:8 30:17 42:2 SOUTH 2:7 State 1:1 3:6 stipulated 47:8 simple 51:3 SOUTHERN 1:1 13:19 18:10 stop 103:20 52:10 79:14 55:14, 21 60:12, 37:21 112:3, 8 stopped 49:10 100:7 14 71:7 stated 67:11 straightforward simplify 44:22 speak 42:22 statement 7:16 107:7 simply 6:10, 22 65:19 16:4, 4, 8, 13 strategies 32:4 10:14 50:1 speaks 16:6 22:18 30:2 STREET 2:15 51:7, 8, 22 61:3 specific 8:11 34:18 45:12, 13 6:6 65:6, 13 70:3 48:8, 21 50:20 46:18 73:8, 11 strongest 94:17 100:6 101:12 76:6, 7 77:16 statements struggled 16:17 104:12, 23 92:7 103:3 15:14, 20, 22 stuck 42:1, 5 105:16 111:5 specifically 16:3, 12 31:23 44:24 single 31:6 74:16 87:4 34:1, 21 36:18, STUMPF 2:19 70:10 specificity 20 37:7, 13 style 58:19 sir 14:2, 7 20:8 103:12 States 1:1, 1, 1 styled 49:20 21:10 28:22 spoken 31:8 3:5, 8, 9, 10 sua 7:10 37:3 38:11 sponte 7:10 13:18, 21, 23 subject 31:5 94:3 98:6 spot 36:5 15:11 16:19 110:2 sit 46:10 47:24 springs 91:20 20:9, 14, 25 submission situation 64:2 spurt 102:15 41:25 47:16, 24 38:13, 15 70:25 71:2, 13 48:2, 10, 14 Page: 22 EFTA01070741 *porIng sor & Associates and I •rrtrus. Inc. submit 48:17, 21 supposed 6:8 88:8 think 4:3 5:22 102:2 50:18 53:2 tells 36:17 8:15 9:25 15:8 submits 39:1 59:25 term 59:12 17:1 22:1, 12, submitted 99:5 Supreme 12:10 93:25 103:22 17, 21 25:16, 23 subpoena 67:17, 14:15 15:15 terms 13:2 35:6 26:3, 4, 18, 20, 22 20:14 42:7 47:5 80:4, 22 27:15, 23 subsection 89:4 sure 23:3 34:16 15 85:24 28:10 36:9, 24 92:2 94:9 58:21 73:5, 10 test 26:18 44:20 46:6, 11, 95:18 96:6, 11 100:3 110:8 testimony 99:4 12, 15 47:2, 23 subsections sworn 40:13 textbook 13:11 48:13 50:15 87:21 97:12 system 6:3 Thank 9:3, 5 51:3 52:10 subsequent 7:21 14:11, 11, 11:4, 7 28:22, 53:9 58:6, 8 92:18 25 15:1 28:16, 23 33:20 35:22, 59:3, 12 60:10 subsequently 18 38:4 23, 24 36:13 61:1, 18, 23 92:23 37:3 38:5, 22, 62:1, 6, 11, 20, substance <T> 23 39:22 47:14 20 63: / / 64:7, 106:10, 16 110:7 tailored 105:19 53:13, 15 57:25 14 66:9, 10, 14, substantive 4:5 take 11:2 16:23 58:2, 3 64:7 23 67:6, 6, 7 48:4 50:6 57:14 67:3 68:22 69:4, 11 70:13, substantively 62:15 63:13 69:3 78:18 15 72:6, 18 107:3 70:2 73:14 79:4 81:21 73:6, 12 74:2, 4, subsumed 34:24 77:2 78:23 98:4 99:9, 10, 14 75:14, 25 successful 88:19 91:2 101: / / 18 109:10, 11, 76:21 77:11 sudden 102:15 106:1 15 111:17, 18, 78:11, 14, 20, 21 sufficient 6:24 taken 48:10 22, 22 81:18 82:2 36:24 85:2 111:16 theirs 49:9 83:3 85:2 92:8 suggest 33:5 talk 18:7 20:15 theoretical 94:7, 20 95:23 49:23 63:9 39:23, 25 47:3, 75:24 76:3 99:12, 19, 21 72:3 74:22 13, 18 66:21 theory 71:11, 14 100:8, 12, 18 87:5 89:12 92:8 68:24 111:20 thick 18:1 101:21 102:12, suggested 35:8 talked 40:23 thing 4:1 19:12 15 103:12 suggesting 83:5 64:13 91:16, 18 24:3 27:11 104:10 105:/, 8 88:14 109:24 talking 16:2 32:22 47:23 106:20 107:6, 110:/4 27:10 31:10 50:7 63:17 20 108:6, 6, 8, suggests 50:23 64:8, 17, 25 85:23 88:2 12, 19 110:17 Suite 1:1 2:4, 68:5 85:11, 12 104:8 111:2, 5, 2/ 10, 15, 20, 23 92:9, 12 95:19, things 18:6 thinking 30:22 summary 26:14 23 20:16 24:24 77:8 40:12 42:3 talks 58:4 25:17 27:8 thinks 73:11 45:5, 8 46:14, 62:10 89:3 37:19, 21, 24 third 17:1 16, 22 58:20 95:13, 18 40:24 41:9 19:25 24:18 superfluous 70:4 task 51:4 79:5, 43:20 44:22 49:1, 2, 21 Supp 13:4 13 47:22 50:15, 24 61:10 76:14 supplemental tax 6:6 58:5 79:17 Thornburgh 12:8 73:2 tell 32:14 37:11 81:15, 17 82:10 thought 4:1 support 6:20 89:15 86:14 97:24 11:14 16:11 48:3 telling 43:18 110:21 37:23 59:4 Suppose 107:8 Page: 23 EFTA01070742 *pumas sor & Associates and Trestreipt.oc Ina thoughts 82:24 107:16 U.S 2:15 10:15 69:23 81:13 threatened 96:15 trickier 108:18 20:14 32:11, 11 82:20 85:10 three 11:22 tried 41:12 52:23 60: / /, 14 86:7, 14 88:22 39:19 48:18 49:18 64:24 85:1, 1 95:6 96:21 92:9 102:10 trigger 75:10 106:15 111:13 thrown 5:14 103:19 ultimate 18:15 UNIVERSITY 2:7 tie 34:17 triggered 32:2 26:5 40:10 unnecessary time 14:16 42:17 71:19 42:3 53:12 55:24 21:24 24:25 76:2 85:21 unopposed 63:1 26:5 32:12 triggering 43:1 ultimately 33:13, 64:14 66:10 36:6 38:12, 18, 71:21 94:9 15 81:10 88:19 unreasonable 24 42:8 58:5 triggers 103:14 101:10 105:24 93:17 78:22 86:7 true 5:4, 8, 25, 107:18 unredacted 89:23 92:18, 24 25 7:19 35:8 uncertain 44:9, 64:12, 20 65:18 94:14 42:11 44:8 10 67:7 68:19 times 26:14 45:4 59:3 uncontroverted unredacting 67:5 28:1, 4 36:23 71:10 112: / / 45:3 unseal 34:9, 25 timing 58:4 try 7:12 22:11 undeniable 43:4 35:1, 18 today 4:1, 13 26:16 36:21 undermine 81:1 unsealed 64:11, 5:23 6:1, 21 40:7 50:24 understand 8:1, 12 66:5 68:19 11:15 18:19 84:20 111:23 17 13:15 32:13 unsealing 66:11 23:12 26:8 trying 10:12 45:10 61:24 upset 88:13 65:11 100:5 15:8 19:22 66:2 69:7 urging 32:14 103:13 105:9 23:2 26:10 81:23 85:16 use 15:23 107:9 108:12 44:16 47:2, 20 88:11 108:3 16:22 17:2, 7, 9, told 81:20 49:23 52:25 understanding 11, 13 18:22, 23, 82:11 104:17, 59:14, 23 85:16 51:20 60:18 24 19:8 24:9, 18, 22 88:11 103:23 64:19 95:8 22 26:1 34:8 tolerate 7:4 turn 62:17 understood 23:4 35:2, 19 36:18, touch 58:5 turned 14:25 103:17 20, 25 37:6, 8 touched 35:16 30:7 48:25 undertake 50:25 41:1 50:21 track 102:14 turns 103:13 underway 70:24 51:10, 15 64:9, transaction 12:1 twist 21:13 71:1, 5 74:18 16 65:6 66:4 transcript 112:11 two 9:10 20:16 89:8, 9, 18 67:8 104:12 treated 52:9 24:14 38:20 undisputed useful 48:12 53:6 57:21 39:2, 3, 4, 7, 12 45:12, 14, 14, 18 59:14 63:23 86:24 53:19 58:5 unenforceable uses 17:15 87:25 88:4 67:4 80:2 106:22 USJ 2:6 100:3 105:3 107:10, 11, 13 unfair 99:24 usually 54:7 108:1, 9 type 10:4 15:13, unilaterally 30:8 UTAH 2:7, 8 treating 52:12 25 16:10 17:3 unique 31:13 utilized 96:9 56:20 18:21 20:7 United 1:1, 1, 1 treatment 99:25 24:15 25:20 3:5, 8, 9, 10 <V> 100:17 27:11 31:1 13:18, 21, 23 vacate 36:21 trial 7:18 14:24 typically 53:23 15:11 16:19 vacated 83:6 15:1 16:13 20:8, 14, 25 various 18:13 32:4 76:12 <U> 41:25 47:16, 24 35:9 37:19 48:2, 10, 14 44:5 45:22 Page: 24 EFTA01070743 46:1 79:15, 19 402 sor & Associates polong and In. VILLAFANA •rvto., 33:20 36:4, 6, 45:1 46:6 81:17 2:14 3:9 34:6 14, 18, 20 37:7 47:12, 23 49:5 venue 71:9, 10, 35:24 36:9, 13 38:8, 18, 24 50:23 53:10 12, 14 89:5, 15 38:24 39:3 39:7, 16 42:12, 54:25 55:25 version 46:7 67:2 99:13 22 43:2 46:12 60:21 61:6, 17 versus 3:5 12:8 violated 4:20 58:15, 25 60:24 62:1, 10, 25 20:9 41:25 9:13 31:14, 24 65:6 67:2, 8 64:6, 17, 19 57:11 110:1 32:18, 25, 25 72:25 73:12, 17, 68:5 71:17 veto 84:4 33:6, 18 52:22 18 78:8, 20 73:5 75:8 77:4 victim 54:9 56:4, 9 57:25 90:23 97:15 80:10, 20 81:18 57:24 71:2 60:4 90:22 99:13 108:5 82:5, 22 83:5, 72:15 80:12 91:1 98:13, 19 109:2 12, 20 84:16 84:23 85:19 100:16 103:10 wanted 11:5 85:5, 22 87:8, 87:14 88:4 105:22 107:23 20:16 24:4 23 89:5, 15 90:15, 16, 16 108:8, 23 41:6 44:13 90:3 92:6, 11, 93:4, 6 violation 17:1 99:15 110:3 14 101:16 Victims 4:14 27:17, 18 28:9 wants 9:1, 4 102:17 104:9 9:10, 10, 12 33:11 34:20 47:17 107:11, 12 27:4 31:14, 25 35:11 40:11 Washington went 10:10 32:14, 22 33:7, 42:5 43:6 46:5 60:17 12:16 32:22 17 41:21 45:17 47:6 48:6, 15 way 16:6 17:2 43:14 60:11 48:5, 12, 15, 16 52:15 100:23 19:17 21:6 76:18 50:18, 22 51:9, 105:1, 2, 4 106:2 36:18 37:13, 15 we're 6:3 10:25 15, 16, 24 52:8, violations 4:14 44:3 46:3 47:2 21:22, 23 37:25 9, 12, 16, 20, 24 25:8 28:5 35:2 50:10, 13 56:2 41:11 44:16 53:2 54:6 61:8 45:17 48:4 69:12 77:11 48:9, 23 49:9, 62:3, 4, 6, 17 51:24 61:8, 10 101:9 103:15 23, 24 50:9, 12 63:19 64:11 64:10 105:7 107:23 51:7, 22 52:2 68:25 69:5, 9, violence 84:23 108:16 56:4 59:8, 19 11, 15 70:1, 8, 96:14 ways 46: / / 90:2 60:22 77:6, 8 23 71:19, 22 virtually 10:2 week 39:9, 13, 20 85:4, 11, 12 72:8 73:19 vitiated 68:2 weeks 38:20 88:4 92:9 74:9 75:1, 4 voice 84:4, 5, 7 39:2, 3, 4, 7, 12 105:17, 18, 21 76:2, 7, 15, 16, void 107:22 53:20, 24 58:13 109:8, 24 19 77:19,22 voluntary 29:19 73:2, 21 West 1:1, 1 2:23 78:5, 6, 13, 17 vs 1:1 weight 44:5 We've 14:25 81:19 84:2, 18 Weinberg 3:19 30:15 31:18 91:22 98:16 <W> WEISSING 2:3 32:24 40:22, 23 99:23, 25 100:3 wait 39:16 welcome 68:23 42:5 47:20, 22 101:9 102:14 47:12 107:11 well 3:14 5:17 48:2, 7 58:14 103:1, 21 waive 24:11, 15, 8:17 9:16, 19 59:7 64:8 104:20 105:10, 18 16:16 18:16 71:11 84:6 10, 22 108:23 waived 67:14 21:17 22:12 91:16 100:16 victim's 74:19 waives 29:20 23:9 28:14 wife 6:7 view 11:9 51:11 walking 100:9 29:7 31:5 33:1 win 110:21 57:16 74:8 want 4:11 5:19 36:3 39:2 wins 62:13 94:5 99:3 10:3 17:9 24:2, 40:22 41:22, 24 withhold 47:17 12, 22 31:21 42:15, 24 43:3 48:11, 14 49:20 Page: 25 EFTA01070744 4 sor & Associates ,02polrins 1 and Trim.tiptio.. Inc. 50:25 52:14 53:9 witnesses 27:4 wondering 47:22, 23 word 15:24 95:4, 9 words 22:15 79:14 104:4, 12 work 13:10, 25 14:5 18:6, 14 21:8, 21 23:5, 13 24:11, 14, 15, 19, 21 25:22 29:8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20 30:13, 18, 23 41:2, 14 46:10 58:9, 15, 24 59:1, 2, 8 65:10 90:2 worked 58:12 working 58:12, 17 world 14:19 19:7 worried 76:4 worry 17:10 19:16 102:5 wrapped 61:2 wrestling 75:13 write 17:12 111:8, 9 writing 36:10 38:10 written 18:2 63:8 70:20 wrong 46:24 49:17 wrote 37:8 <Y> year 14:22 43:14 59:6 107:13 109:16 years 14:19 15:10 73:10 81:25 102:10 107:10, 12, 13 Page: 26 EFTA01070745