Epstein Secrets

77 everything, but I really do not think that Mr. Epstein is going to engage in serious negotiations until

orking on a deferred [sic] prosecution agreement because it may well be that we cannot reach agreement here.” The defense redline version required Epstein to plead guilty to a federal information charging two misdemeanor counts of attempt to intentionally harass a person to prevent testimony, the pendi

154 The Affirmation read: “I, Jeffrey E. Epstein do hereby re-affirm the Non-Prosecution

d victims of state crimes secure civil financial settlements.” 154 The Affirmation read: “I, Jeffrey E. Epstein do hereby re-affirm the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to same dated October 30, 2007.” 155 Villafaña sent Lefkowitz a five-page letter r

147 Acosta and Villafaña were copied on this email. 148 The Addendum is attached as Exhibit 4 to this Report. 94 D. Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea The addendum did not bring the case to conclusion. Instead, the matter entered a new, protracted phase, which inv

154 The Affirmation read: “I, Jeffrey E. Epstein do hereby re-affirm the Non-Prosecution A

trical protection be available for the decision not to charge.” Id. at 41 (emphasis in original). Finally, in an analogous area of the law, in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), the Supreme Court concluded that an agency’s decision not to undertake an enforcement action is not reviewable unde

) & (8). It is now beyond dispute, for example, that in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office formally signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that barred his The victims are contemporaneously filing a motion to have their facts accepted by the Court. EFTA00177009 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM

ein agreed to a "confidentiality" provision in the agreement barring its disclosure to anyone — including the victims. For the next nine months, as Epstein was well aware, the U.S. Attorney's Office assiduously concealed from the victims the existence of this signed non-prosecution agreement. Indeed, th

t's desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, he wrote on behalf of his clients

formally signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that barred his The victims are contempo

criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take t

ate Attorney's Office in light of the pre- existing state investigation. In addition to the authorities cited above, the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler'. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), further supports the interpretation that the CVRA does not provide for judicial intervention in a case where no crim

RA rights to confer and fairness in cases involving white- collar and other wealthy defendants who commonly engage in pro-charge plea negotiations. Jeffrey Epstein's case illustrates my point. The U.S. Attorney's Office assigned specific attorneys, with AUSA Villafana being the lead prosecutor and primary attorn

rey Epstein. In her petition, Ms. Wild alleges that when federal prosecutors secretly negotiated and entered into a non- prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007, they violated her rights under the CVRA—in particular, her rights to confer with the government's lawyers and to be treated fairly by the

ized by notorious sex trafficker and child abuser Jeffrey Epstein. In her petition, Ms. Wild alleges that

t resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identif

e United States in their control over criminal prosecutions. Id. (quoting United States v. Cox. 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1965)); accord. e.g.. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821. 832, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) ("gyre decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to indict ... has l

' Rights Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, that affect all crime victims in this Circuit. After over a decade of litigation, the Majority holds that Jeffrey Epsteie's victims were not authorized to bring this petition because the CVRA does not permit stand- alone suits, and, therefore, it should have been dismisse

pstein. In her mandamus petition, Ms. Wild asserts that when federal prosecutors secretly negotiated and executed a non- prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007, they violated her rights under the CVRA—in particular, her rights to confer with and to be treated fairly by the government's lawyers. We

ida to some extent). While he was in custody on these charges, Epstein was found dead. Statement of Attorney General William P. Barr on the Death of Jeffrey Epstein (Aug. 10, 2018), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/pristatement-attorney-general-william-p- barr-death-jeffrey-epstein. In June 2020,

t resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identifi

c prosecutions, until they come before the court to which they are returnable, are within the exclusive direction of the district attorney ....'); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832, 105 S. Ct. 1649, 1656, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) r[T]he decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to indict ..

l relevant times, the Office had approximately 20 Assistant U.S. Attorneys assigned to the West Palm Beach location. The prosecutor assigned to the Epstein case, I I end I were assigned to different sections within the Office. We reported to different supervisors. 11. I did not participate in any way

ent 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 2 of 4 violated Florida Bar rules and Department of Justice regulations by representing employees of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") in civil litigation after the undersigned retired from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "Of

Justice regulations by representing employees of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") in civil litigation after the

s retained to represent several other members of Mr. Epstein's staff in their civil depositions. I5.. After

ate Attorney's Office in light of the pre- existing state investigation. In addition to the authorities cited above, the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), further supports the interpretation that the CVRA does not provide for judicial intervention in a case where no cri

l relevant times, the Office had approximately 20 Assistant U.S. Attorneys assigned to the West Palm Beach location. The prosecutor assigned to the Epstein case, Ann Marie Villafana, end I were assigned to different sections within the Office. We reported to different supervisors. 11. I did not partic

ent 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 2 of 4 violated Florida Bar rules and Department of Justice regulations by representing employees of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") in civil litigation after the undersigned retired from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "Of

Justice regulations by representing employees of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") in civil litigation after the

s retained to represent several other members of Mr. Epstein's staff in their civil depositions. I5.. After

ate Attorney's Office in light of the pre- existing state investigation. In addition to the authorities cited above, the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler!. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), further supports the interpretation that the CVRA does not provide for judicial intervention in a case where no crim

eference to the position taken by employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in letters to the petitioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ employees relevant to the issue of whether a duty existed under § 3771(a)(5) to consult with petitioners prio

later, on July 9, 2008, the Government filed its Response and an accompanying Declaration, establishing that (1) no federal criminal case charging Epstein had ever been filed and that a non- prosecution agreement ("NPA") had been signed and (2) despite this, the U.S. Attorney's Office had used its best

titioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ em

ate Attorney's Office in light of the pre- existing state investigation. In addition to the authorities cited above, the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), further supports the interpretation that the CVRA does not provide for judicial intervention in a case where no cri

eference to the position taken by employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in letters to the petitioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ employees relevant to the issue of whether a duty existed under § 3771(a)(5) to consult with petitioners prio

later, on July 9, 2008, the Government filed its Response and an accompanying Declaration, establishing that (1) no federal criminal case charging Epstein had ever been filed and that a non- prosecution agreement ("NPA") had been signed and (2) despite this, the U.S. Attorney's Office had used its best

titioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ em

ate Attorney's Office in light of the pre- existing state investigation. In addition to the authorities cited above, the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), further supports the interpretation that the CVRA does not provide for judicial intervention in a case where no cri

reference to the position taken by employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in letters to the petitioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ employees relevant to the issue of whether a duty existed under § 3771(a)(5) to consult with petitioners prio

later, on July 9, 2008, the Government filed its Response and an accompanying Declaration, establishing that (1) no federal criminal case charging Epstein had ever been filed and that a non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") had been signed and (2) despite this, the U.S. Attorney's Office had used its best

etitioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ e

tate Attorney's Office in light of the pre-existing state investigation. In addition to the authorities cited above, the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler v. Chaney , 470 U.S. 821 (1985), further supports the interpretation that the CVRA does not provide for judicial intervention in a case where no cr

S. 427, 87 S.Ct. 1 , 18 L. Ed.2d 865 (1967); Buchanan Rhodes. 885 U.S. 3, 87 S.Ct. 83, 17 .Ed.2d 9 (1966); Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 82 S.Ct. 1294, 8 L.Ed2d 794 (1962). Since in this case we affirm that refusal, we need not now decide whether or not there is juri

, Gary A. Hughes, J.D, Steven D. Najarian, J.D., Jeffrey A. Schafer, J.D., and Jeffrey J. Shampo, J.D. II

e faced this issue have held that language-based classi- fications are not the equivalent of national origin classifications. See Soberal-Peres v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 41 (2d Cir.1983), art. denied, — U.S —, 104 S.Ct. 1713, 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); Frontera v Sindell, 522 F.2d 1215, 1219-20 (6th Cir.1