Epstein Secrets

nd, in our opinion, showed a lack of understanding of sex offenders generally and a lack of knowledge of this case. Gerald Lefcourt has represented Martha Stewart — the last thing he would do is bring his client in to face a possible "perjury trap." In the middle of this period, which started in November 2006

his case. Gerald Lefcourt has represented Martha Stewart — the last thing he would do is bring his client

afaita to Montan summarizing conversation with Goldberger that Epstein would serve sentence in confinement '24-bouts-a-day 80 6/29/2008 Email from Kuyrkendall to Villafana regarding work release 81 7/3/2008 Email from Villafiula to Sloman providing update on meeting with Col Gauger at PBSO regarding wor

e working on a number of different child exploitation matters at the time, along with ICE Special Agent David Malone. I remember generally that S/A Kuyrkendall mentioned an investigation of a wealthy man who lived on Palm Beach and recruited minors for sexual activity. During these casual conversations, I d

Soman, Villafana Atkinson Email chain regarding Epstein's request to do less time than 18 months 5/29/2008 Villafalia, Senior; cc: Atkinson, Kuyrkendall, Richards Sloman Email regarding DAG decision to consider Epstein's "appeal" and that GJ for Tuesday is off B-40 Privileged Confidential Page 3

and be heard during some phases of the prosecution of the person charged with the crime." Id. at 1285-86 (footnote omitted and emphasis added). In Stewart, the issue was whether individuals who had purchased houses from various real estate developers were victims under the CVRA, when the purchasers wer

rime. The letters specifically advised that if the Petitioners felt that they were "being threatened or harassed, then please contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or [AUSA Villafaiia]. (See DE14, Exs. 1 and 2.) It is further undisputed that Jane Doe #1 actually took advantage of the offer of protection when E

ane Doe #1] and August 2006 [Jane Doe #2] wherein they were advised of this right and given the phone numbers of AUSA Villafafia, FBI Special Agent Kuyrkendall, and the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime. The letters specifically advised that if the Petitioners felt that they were "being threa

.S.C. § 3771(e) (the CVRA defines a victim as "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense"); In re Stewart, 552 F.3d 1285, 1288 (1 Cir. 2008) ("to determine a crime victim, then, first, we identify the behavior constituting 'commission of a Federal offen

l. ¶ 5, DE 361-26.) Jane Doe 1's understanding was that the federal investigation would continue. (Jane Doe 1 Decl. 16.) In contrast, Special Agent Kuyrkendall stated that the meeting with Jane Doe 1 was to advise her of the main terms of the NPA.2 (Kuykendall Decl. ¶ 8, DE 403-18.) After the meeting, Speci

he provision about monetary damages could be grounds for impeachment of the victims and herself. (Kuykendall Decl. ¶ 9.) According to Special Agent Kuyrkendall, the investigation of Epstein continued through 2008. (Kuykendall Decl. ¶ 11.) In addition to Jane Doe I, FBI agents only talked to two other victim

and be heard during some phases of the prosecution of the person charged with the crime." Id. at 1285-86 (footnote omitted and emphasis added). In Stewart, the issue was whether individuals who had purchased houses from various real estate developers were victims under the CVRA, when the purchasers wer

ane Doe #1] and August 2006 [Jane Doe #2) wherein they were advised of this right and given the phone numbers of AUSA Villafaila, FBI Special Agent Kuyrkendall, and the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime. The letters specifically advised that if the Petitioners felt that they were "being threa

rime. The letters specifically advised that if the Petitioners felt that they were "being threatened or harassed, then please contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or [AUSA Villafafia]. (See DE14, Exs. 1 and 2.) It is further undisputed that Jane Doe #1 actually took advantage of the offer of protection when E

and be heard during some phases of the prosecution of the person charged with the crime." Id. at 1285-86 (footnote omitted and emphasis added). In Stewart, the issue was whether individuals who had purchased houses from various real estate developers were victims under the CVRA, when the purchasers wer

rime. The letters specifically advised that if the Petitioners felt that they were "being threatened or harassed, then please contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or [AUSA Villafaiial. (See DE14, Exs. I and 2.) It is further undisputed that Jane Doe ttl actually took advantage of the offer of protection when

ane Doe #1) and August 2006 [Jane Doe #2) wherein they were advised of this right and given the phone numbers of AUSA Villafafia, FBI Special Agent Kuyrkendall, and the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime. The letters specifically advised that if the Petitioners felt that they were "being threa

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (motions to vacate or correct sentences); 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus proceedings are initiated as a new lawsuit); see also In re Stewart, 552 F.3d 1285, 1288 (11th Cir. 2008) ("The mandamus proceeding before us is a free standing cause of action, brought by persons claiming to be CVR

tim Notification Letter. She stated that the U.S. Attorney's Office would "not remove the language about contacting AUSA Villafafia or Special Agent Kuyrkendall with questions or concerns." Again, AUSA Villafafia wrote that "federal law requires that victims have the `reasonable right to confer with the att