Epstein Secrets

informed me that any resolution of the criminal matter was imminent at that time, nor even that such a resolution was being contemplated. In fact, Villafafia gave me the impression that the Federal investigation was on-going, very expansive, and continuously growing, both in the number of identified vict

Florida. Neither Doe 1 nor Doe 2 had any reason to believe that they were victims of a state crime that was being prosecuted. Based on everything Villafafia said, and could not say, there was no possible way I could have believed that this state plea could affect the federal investigation or the rights

se calls, the line prosecutor continually created the impression that no resolution of the case was imminent: During the telephone calls I had with Villafafia between mid and late June 2008, she never informed me that previously, in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office had reached a non-prosecution

itable estoppel precludes challenging a document only where that party "must rely on the terms of the written agreement in asserting [her] claims." MS Dealer Service Corp. v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942, 947 (11th Cir. 1999). Here, of course, the victims need not rely on the terms of the Government's non-prosecution agreem

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

elements of equitable estoppel since they are not relying upon the terms of the written agreement in asserting their claims. D.E. 416 at 57, citing MS Dealer Service Corp. v. Franklin 177 F.3d 942, 947 (11'h Cir. 1999). They maintain that their claims in this litigation are not based on the NPA, but the CVRA. This arg

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

elements of equitable estoppel since they are not relying upon the terms of the written agreement in asserting their claims. D.E. 416 at 57, citing MS Dealer Service Corp. v. Franklin 177 F.3d 942, 947 (11th Cir. 1999). They maintain that their claims in this litigation are not based on the NPA, but the CVRA. This arg