Epstein Secrets

12 Who at the firm helped Scott create or operate the Epstein investments? EFTA00600188 April 18, 2011 Page 10 DRAFT 4 18 11 8:21 PM 19.13 Did Villegas know about JEE deals? 19.14 Know Michael Szafranski (or of him)? 19.14.1 If yes, explain role of Szafranski regarding JEE cases? 19.14.2 He was an

9 Did you know Paul Cassell? If yes, since when and how did you meet? 14.10 A Mr. Howell? same as for Cassell. 14.11 3 files: State court was ■. (Jane Doe # 2), E.W. (Jane Doe #1) and . 14.12 Who staffed the Epstein files? 14.12.1 BE testified that you Judge Stone, Bill Berger and Rob Buschell worke

tims' 165:14 video 55:6 166:16 videographer 2:21 4:1.12 55:2,5 131:2,5 146:9,12 169:5 videotaped 1:13 3:3 4:4 6:12 view 105:1 145:11 158:10 Villegas 138:13 violation 165:3 violently 92:21 visually 70:5 voice 84:6 voluntarily 106:13 106:19 168:20 volunteering 51:14 voting 14:20,25 vs 1:7

riod and say, You 25 know, I should have realized there was something that were being prosecuted on behalf of throe young 1 woman: M., B.N. and Jane Doe. And w➢ will refer to them when I talk to you about them in that ➢ame way, 4 referring to sham by those initial➢ and that 5 pseudonym. 4 Desc

dulent conduct alleged herein while willfully ignoring and/or failing to exercise reasonable care. 52. Defendant, DEBRA E. VILLEGAS (hereinafter, "Villegas"), is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida and, at all times relevant hereto, was the chief operating officer at RRA. Villegas, Rothst

illionaire financier. In fact, RRA did have inside information due to its representation of one of Epstein's alleged victims in a civil case styled Jane Doe v. Jefrey Epstein, currently pending in the Southern District of Florida. Representatives of D3 were offered "the opportunity" to invest in a pre-su

a 249 page Amended Complaint naming additional Defendants was filed. 21. In addition, and upon information and belief, ROTHSTEIN, David an, ebbie Villegas, Andrew Barnett, Michael Fisten and Kenneth Jenne (all employees of RRA) through brokers or middlemen would stage regular meetings during which fals

, ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS (who either know or should have known) and, at times, L.M. in her Civil Action against EPSTEIN: a) ded claims for damages in Jane Doe's federal action in rces s of $50,000,000.00 rather than simply alleging the jurisdictional limits. b) Organized a Jane Doe TV media interview witho

1838255 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014) passim United States v. Vilar, No. 05 Cr. 621 (KMK), 2007 WL 1075041 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2007) 169 United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) 115 EFTA00077629 United States v. Walker, 191 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 1999) 70 United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37

case. AUSA-1 also does not believe she ever received any such discovery materials. (Ex. 4 at 6). 66 EFTA00077698 requested the same relating to Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al., 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN). Because of the ongoing and covert nature of the grand jury investigation, and consistent with its st

of privacy rather than that of a third party." United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 731 (1980) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324, 1333 (2d Cir. 1990). Ultimately, the Fourth Amendment inquiry is "whether [a] defendant has established a legitimate expectation of

udge Netburn's Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently,

1838255 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014) passim United States v. Vilar, No. 05 Cr. 621 (KMK), 2007 WL 1075041 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2007) 169 United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) 115 EFTA00039444 United States v. Walker, 191 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 1999) 70 United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37

case. AUSA-1 also does not believe she ever received any such discovery materials. (Ex. 4 at 6). 66 EFTA00039513 requested the same relating to Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al., 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN). Because of the ongoing and covert nature of the grand jury investigation, and consistent with its st

of privacy rather than that of a third party." United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 731 (1980) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324, 1333 (2d Cir. 1990). Ultimately, the Fourth Amendment inquiry is "whether [a] defendant has established a legitimate expectation of

udge Netburn's Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently,

W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014) 37, 38, 39, 154 United States v. Vilar, No. 05 Cr. 621 (KMK), 2007 WL 1075041 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2007) 114 United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) 82 United States v. Walker, 191 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 1999) 48 United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37 (2d Cir. 1999)

dge Netburn's Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netburn, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al., 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. 1). Subsequently,

1838255 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014) passim United States v. Vilar, No. 05 Cr. 621 (KMK), 2007 WL 1075041 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2007) 169 United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) 115 EFTA00103022 United States v. Walker, 191 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 1999) 70 United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37

case. AUSA- I also does not believe she ever received any such discovery materials. (Ex. 4 at 6). 66 EFTA00103091 requested the same relating to Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al., 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN). Because of the ongoing and covert nature of the grand jury investigation, and consistent with its st