Epstein Secrets

atement reveals how inapposite a federal prosecution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court's very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court's interpretive methodology when it comes to federal

erson ..."). § 2423(b) is not such a statute. Federal court decisions watering down the "for the purpose of " requi ment fly in the face of the two Suprems Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen'. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak l

orida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 RE: JEGE, Inc. ("JEGE") and Hyperion Air; Inc. ("Hyperion") Dear Ms. Villafafia: Thank you very much for your letter dated May 15, 2007 concerning the subpoenas issued to JEGE, Inc. and Hyperion Air, Inc., along with your agree

Federal Rule of Criininai Procedure 6(e)(3)(E) do not appear to apply. See, e.g. Carlson v. United°States, $37 F.3d at 763 (7th CJ,T. 201(:,) ("As the Supreine Court put it, Rule 6(e) is 'but deciaratory' of the iong-standing 'principle' that ·'disclosuie' of grand jury materials is 'committed to the discretion o

cal counsel to insist that the State plea comply with the terms ofthe NPA, or “we will consider it a breach ofthe agreement and proceed accordingly.” Villafafia further advised her superior: “Someone really needs to talk to Barry [Krischer].” Appendix at 3 (OPR Report, p. 109). I ! Greenberg Traurlg, PA ■401

s that, "while not the equivalent of criminal a post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thorn v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]se

e NPA, the investigation had not developed evidence of `any other potential co-conspirators.'"); id. at 167 (with respect to Maxwell, "according to Villafafia, in 2007, they `didn't have any specific evidence against her.'"). 55 EFTA00100022 satisfied that he should prosecute and will be able promptly t

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

edged that investigators were aware of Epstein's longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well- known socialite, but, according to Villafafia, in 2007, they "didn't have any specific evidence against her." Accordingly, Villafaiia believed that the only "co-conspirators" of Epstein who wou

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

edged that investigators were aware of Epstein's longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well- known socialite, but, according to Villafafia, in 2007, they "didn't have any specific evidence against her." Accordingly, Villafaiia believed that the only "co-conspirators" of Epstein who wou

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

, OPR concluded that "the evidence does not show that [Former USAO-SDFL U.S. Attorney Alex] Acosta, [Former USAO-SDFL supervisor Andrew] Lourie, or Villafafia agreed to the nonprosecution provision to protect any of Epstein's political, celebrity, or other influential associates." OPR Report at 168." In

tempt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(cXI) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania'. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witness. It hastened to add, Itthe ability to

t position in this case, it is that this provision is not in fact part of the plea agreement in this case. If our understanding is correct, then Ms. Villafafia has filed a false affidavit with the court, albeit inadvertently. We respectfidly request that she file a new affidavit that corrects this false in