Epstein Secrets

r, and Ocariz was not selected as the attorney for the victims. Despite this resolution, Epstein's counsel continue to allege that my suggestion of Ocariz to serve as counsel for the victims represents a conflict of interest and that I should be removed from prosecuting the case and/or disciplined. The

sel with a series of possible attorss, including Humberto Ocariz ("Ocariz"), who is a friend of my boyfriend, E.J. (M"). At the time, I identified Ocariz as a friend of a "good friend." Epstein's attorneys rejected the other suggestions and selected Ocariz. After conferring with the First Assistant a

ages from Epstein and that Epstein would provide counsel for the victims. I provided Epstein's counsel with a series of possible attorss, including Humberto Ocariz ("Ocariz"), who is a friend of my boyfriend, E.J. (M"). At the time, I identified Ocariz as a friend of a "good friend." Epstein's attorneys rejec

"good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms. account was misleading, as it omitted that this "good friend" was her live-in boyfriend, and that Mr. Ocariz was his former law-school roommate. When we discovered this independently, we objected. Only then did the SDFL propose assigning the selection proc

entative" to an independent third party, AUSA had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms. account was misleading, as it omitted that this "good frien

present the unnamed women in claims against Epstein). 26. The next day, advised the defense that she was removing one of the alternatives to Mr. Ocariz from our consideration, on the basis that "one of his partners is married to an AUSA here," and explained that, because of that personal relationshi

entative" to an independent third party, AUSA had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz and claimed he had been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." account was misleading, as it omitted that this "good friend" wa

the unnamed women in claims against Epstein). The next day, AUSA Villafana advised the defense that she was removing one of the alternatives to Mr. Ocariz from our consideration, on the basis that “one of his partners is married to an AUSA here,” and explained that, because of that personal relationship

ndependent third party, AUSA Marie Villafana had already proposed an “attorney representative.” She - had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a “good friend in the Appellate Division.” Ms. Villafana’s account was misleading, as it omitted that this