Epstein Secrets

e accompanying Orders. BACKGROUND 1. From 2006 to 2008, the undersigned (hereinafter Villafaila) was the lead prosecutor on the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, known as Operation Leap Year. 2. That matter involved the issuance of subpoenas on behalf of and the presentation of testimony to Federal Grand J

ing the federal investigation. The USAO also decided to enter into this NPA without first conferring with those victims. 4. After signing the NPA, Epstein delayed performing its terms, and began raising arguments to various officials within the Justice Department challenging both the legality of the N

was the lead prosecutor on the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, known as Operation Leap Year. 2. That

s matter because his former law firm represented Mr. Epstein during the course of the investigation and negoti

rict of Florida was recused, and the Middle District has no objection to the filing of this motion. 28. The Criminal Chief also has conferred with the General Counsel's Office of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) who has no objection to the filing of this motion. 29. OPR has advised that it takes no position

2. Any emails or other documents, including those circulated within the FBI on intranet server, suggesting or complaining about or recognizing that Jeffrey Epstein or his agents or attorneys or acquaintances had offered (or were possibly offered) current or future opportunities, employment prospects, future cli

, direct or indirect, between Alex Acosta, n the one hand and Jeffrey Epstein (or any individual or business entity associated or connected with Epstein) on the other. This request includes all emails exchanged on the FBI intranet email as well as emails or correspondence exchanged through other ema

rect, between Alex Acosta, n the one hand and Jeffrey Epstein (or any individual or business entity as

"Headquarters" for the FBI (i.e., officials for the Federal Bureau of Investigation located in Washington,D.C., including the Director's Office and the General Counsel's Office). Supplemental Discovery Request 8. Any emails, telephone logs, photographs, statements, or documents of any type supporting or relating to the Gov

2. Any emails or other documents, including those circulated within the FBI on intranet server, suggesting or complaining about or recognizing that Jeffrey Epstein or his agents or attorneys or acquaintances had offered (or were possibly offered) current or future opportunities, employment prospects, future cli

sibi tions, direct or indirect, between Alex Acosta, ne and and Jeffrey Epstein (or any individual or business entity associated or connected with Epstein) on the other. This request includes all emails exchanged on the FBI intranet email as well as emails or correspondence exchanged through other ema

ct or indirect, between Alex Acosta, ne and and Jeffrey Epstein (or any individual or business entity as

"Headquarters" for the FBI (i.e., officials for the Federal Bureau of Investigation located in Washington,D.C., including the Director's Office and the General Counsel's Office). Supplemental Discovery Request 8. Any emails, telephone logs, photographs, statements, or documents of any type supporting or relating to the Gov

, "CONFIDENTIAL". Such a stamping to them indicates the documents might be classified. He also said these documents were not redacted and relate to Epstein. I told him they do relate to Epstein. MI instructed me to have the Criminal Chief or the AUSA contact the FBI to have them look at the documents an

the documents and determine if they are classified. He wants this done asap so that we can have a call later in the day with him and others, include the General Counsel's Office. He also told me to notify the Contracting Officer on the this contract (she is at the Justice Management Division) and notify her of a potential c

he statute of limitations will expire by the end of that period. The court has already acknowledged that it cannot order the government to prosecute Epstein. Even if the court finds the non-prosecution agreement was invalid because the CVRA had been violated, and sets it aside, the government still has

as not a matter our Office should handle, as you anticipated in the last paragraph of your March 3 letter. Accordingly, your letter was forwarded to the General Counsel's Office, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, for a decision on what office your request should be referred. I also received your previous e-mail regarding