Epstein Secrets

llowed those other victims to participate while maintaining some semblance of privacy. Petitioners also reiterate baseless allegations made against AUSA Villafaila regarding the choice of the attorney-representative for the victims, despite knowing that: (1) the issue of the attorney-representative arose after

d by the government arc subject to a protective order prohibiting their disclosure. In the related case 9:08-CV-80893 (the case where Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 sued Mr. Epstein for money), the Magistrate Judge prohibited Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 EFTA00177187 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 56 Entered on

. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs, 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. NOTICE OF' OBJECTION Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 have moved for disclosure of settlement letters between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the lawyers who represented Jeffrey Epstein du

AM Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 2 of 19 Non-Prosecution Agreement reached between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein. Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doc 2 also seek other unspecified relief, which they call "appropriate remedies," for the government's purported failure to keep them invol

t the United States Attorney's Office prepared negotiated plea agreements containing these charges. For example, in a September 18, 2007, email from AUSA Villafaila to Lefkowitz (attached hereto as Exhibit "H"), she attached the proposed plea agreement describing Epstein's witness tampering as follows: "UNITED

buse. Epstein also made perform oral sex on him and was to perform sex acts on (Epstein's live- in sex slave) in Epstein's presence. See Plaintiff Jane Doe's Notice Regarding Evidence of Similar Acts of Sexual Assault, filed in Jane Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-cv-80893 (S.D. Fla. 2010), as DE 197, (hereinafte

e a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." Further, on January 31, 2008, Wild met with AUSA Villafaila, FBI agents, and another federal prosecutor, provided additional details of Epstein's sexual abuse of her, and expressed her hope that Epstein woul

30 underage girls whom he sexually abused at his mansion in Palm Beach, Florida. The victims la ded one of the initial petitioners in this case, (Jane Doe I), who was 15 years old when Epstein first sexually abused her. Following the FBI's investigation, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern Di

2005) (recognizing that the CVRA does not require notice of public court proceedings based on violations of state criminal law), and, in any event, AUSA Villafaila provided Petitioners with pre-hearing notice of those state proceeding — in which Epstein pled guilty to state criminal charges — upon the governme

rt support a finding of jurisdiction, are the following discovery requests: • An order from this Court that the Government provide Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 all information in its possession, including documents and correspondence, about why it decided not to prosecute Epstein's crimes against them (

ie Villafana secured pro bono counsel to represent Jane Doe #1. Pro bono counsel was able to assist Jane Doe #1 in avoiding the improper deposition. AUSA Villafaila secured pro bono counsel by contacting Meg Garvin, Esq. of the the National Crime Victims' Law Center in Portland, Oregon, which is based in the Le

by-the ttemeyls-Offieer Mr. Edwards first saw a reference to the NPA on or after July 9, 2008, when the Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe's emergency petition. That-pleading-was-the-first-publie mention-ef-the-neit-preseeution-agreement-and-the-fifst-diselesere-to-MirE4wards-(ead-thus-te

tters in approximately June 2007 [Jane 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

FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 1 of 54 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO JANE DOE NI AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF TH

. Next, you assert that our letter miscb aractetizes Mr. Epstein's obligation to pay damages to the victims. To avoid that suggestion, I have asked AUSA Villafaila to simply quote the terms of the Agreement directly into the Notification Letter. We also have no objection to referring to Mr. Epstein as a "sexua

ttorney Edwards who was informed of these developments and who received both the initial and corrected victim notification letters that were sent to Jane Doe #1. 12. In accordance with the Court's instructions at the status conference of August 14, 2008 and the terms of the Protective Order entered by t

ction of the U.S. Attorney's Office, because it believed that the CVRA applied to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. The FBI did not notify Jane Doe #1 or Jane Doe #2 that the Non-Prosecution Agreement had been concluded four months earlier. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 reasonably understood that a federal crimi

t 08/01/2008 Page 8 of 16 On about July 3, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 learned, through telephones conversations had between Mr. Edwards and AUSA Villafaila, that the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein might be in the process of finalizing some sort of plea arrangement. Accordingly, they filed an emerge