Epstein Secrets

federal prosecution. We have discussed the factual and legal issues you raise with the Criminal Division’s Appellate Section, and we consulted with the Office of Enforcement Operations concerning the petite policy. We are examining the narrow question as to whether there is a legitimate basis for the U.S. Attorney’s Office to proce

012635 TAB 32 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012636 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 20069 " JANE DOE NO. 1, by and through JANE DOE’s FATHER as parent and natural guardian, and JANE DOR’s FATHER, and . . JANE DOE’s STEPMOTHER, individually, ciV-MA RRA Plaintiffs, MAGISTRATE JUDGH

fices, and provide legal expertise and policy guidance. Among the Criminal Division components mentioned in this Report are the Appellate Section, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, and, most prominently, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). CEOS, based in

.C. Section 3771, Doe v. United States, Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008). Another victim subsequently joined the litigation as “Jane Doe 2.” iii Soon after he was incarcerated, Epstein applied for the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s work release program, and the Sheriff approved his a

erfered improperly with the state’s authority. He explained his reasoning to OPR: 245 In 2008, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the office charged with reviewing Petite policy waiver requests, opined that even if the Petite policy applied with respect to the victims of the i

victim denied being involved in, or being a victim of, criminal activity. Later, the victim obtained new counsel and joined the CVRA litigation as “Jane Doe #2.” 219 In his March 20, 2011 letter, addressed “To whom it may concern,” and published online in The Daily Beast, Acosta described “a year-lo

ive witnesses, Mr. Epstein and his attorneys.! Not surprisingly, Ms. Villafana issued this subpoena without the requisite prior approval by the DOJ’s Office of Enforcement Operations. See United States Attorneys’ Manual, § 9-13.410. When confronted, she misleadingly responded that she had consulted with the Department of Justice a

in the former firm of Herman, Sloman, & Mermelstein, filed five lawsuits, each asking for $50 million, against Mr. Epstein. Each lawsuit is entitled “Jane Doe # vs. Jeffrey Epstein,” despite the fact that each of the plaintiffs is an adult and not entitled to plead anonymously. See Tab 32, Examples of Feder