Epstein Secrets

ent and learned that Epstein's state court change of plea hearing was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. D.E. 403-19 at 21, 1 38. AUSA Villafafia called attorney Edwards, told him of the June 30, 2008 hearing, and stressed the importance of the hearing.2 Thus, the government provided petitione

o pursue and foist himself upon those victims who have never reached out and asked to confer. Neither Jane Doe 1 nor Jane Doe 2 ever contacted AUSA Villafafia or FBI Special Agent Kuyrkendall regarding the case, despite being provided their phone numbers and addresses. D.E. 403-19,915. Since the Court's s

cution of Epstein might still occur. Even though petitioners do not dispute that Epstein sought review at the DOJ, first at the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, then at the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, they dismiss the Government's argument as "resorts to technicalities." D.E

ent and learned that Epstein's state court change of plea hearing was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. D.E. 403-19 at 21, 1 38. AUSA Villafafia called attorney Edwards, told him of the June 30, 2008 hearing, and stressed the importance of the hearing.2 Thus, the government provided petitione

o pursue and foist himself upon those victims who have never reached out and asked to confer. Neither Jane Doe 1 nor Jane Doe 2 ever contacted AUSA Villafafia or FBI Special Agent Kuyrkendall regarding the case, despite being provided their phone numbers and addresses. D.E. 403-19,915. Since the Court's s

cution of Epstein might still occur. Even though petitioners do not dispute that Epstein sought review at the DOJ, first at the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, then at the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, they dismiss the Government's argument as "resorts to technicalities." ■.

ea resolution. The inclusion of a Section 2255 remedy was specifically raised and discussed at the September 7th meeting. Indeed, according to AUSA Villafafia's notes, you thanked her for bringing it to your attention. Again, no objection to the Section 2255 issue was raised. After considering that argume

analysis. Indeed, before approving their indictment package, I directed them to consult with the subject matter experts in the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section to confirm our interpretation of the law. I am surprised, however, to read a letter that raises issues that either have not be