Epstein Secrets

Mau MencheLjeff Sloman, mid Marie Villakula 27 5/15/2007 Transcript of Kuyrkendall Testimony 28 5/22/07- 5/24/07 Emails between Andrew Laurie, Gerald Lel-court, Man Mencheljeff Sloman, Marie Villafaiia, Lilly Ann Sanchez, and Karen Atkinson regarding second meeting with counsel for Epstein 29 5/22/2007 T

ainst federal prosecution. 34 7/13/2007 Letter from Roy Black to Marie Villa' la with handwritten attorney Lourie notes 35 7/25/2007 latter from Gerald l.efrourt and Alan Dershowia to Matthew Menchel arguing that no charge can or should be made under 18 U.S.C. S 2422(b). 36 7/26/2007 Email from Marie ViIla

f the individuals who have accepted Epstein's offer of payment for representation and the names of their attorneys. 2/1/2007 A. Marie Villafafia Gerald B. Lefcourt Talking points and documents for 2/1/07 meeting 4 2/5/2007 A. Marie Villafatia Gerald B. Lefcourt Production of debit/credit card statement r

inson A. Marie Villafaila Draft of email to be sent to Sloman and Menchel stating that Villafatia disagrees with promising to have a meeting with Lefcourt or any of Epstein's other attorneys. Believes the prior meeting disclosed prosecution strategy and holding another meeting will disclose even more.

Epstein may have been involved in the manufacture and/or possession of child pornography. Eradication of child pornography was a particular focus of Project Safe Childhood; its production and storage on computer equipment involved the use of items produced in interstate and foreign commerce; and child pornography was

rald Lefcourt provided written arguments for why Epstein should not be charged federal) Exhibit 32). The following day, Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Lilly M presented their arguments to FAUSA and Chief Sil her supervisor, and I also attended (Exhibit 5). At some point during the meeting,

that, prior to this investigation, I had ever prepared' request for 6001 immunity, so I was researching the process. The meetingwith Ms. and Mr. Lefcourt was set for February 1, 2007. As noted above, despite Ms. statements of Epstein's willina to cooperate, she complained that my document requests w

Epstein may have been involved in the manufacture and/or possession of child pornography. Eradication of child pornography was I particular focus of Project Safe Childhood; its production and storage on computer equipment involved the use of items produced in interstate and foreign commerce; and child pornc ty was of

counsel for Epstein (Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt) prior to completing my investigation. My co-cou

will try to collect them into general categories in chronological order. a. I did not want to meet with counsel for Epstein (Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt) prior to completing my investigation. My co-counsel (John McMillan) agreed with me. Our supervisor, Andrew Lourie, overruled us. b. AUSA McMillan

borhood prosecutors. In January 2004, AUSA Villafafia transferred to the West Palm Beach Office. In 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice initiated Project Safe Childhood, and, in recognition of her expertise in child exploitation matters, AUSA Villafalia became the Southern District of Florida's first Project Safe C

s of that conflict of interest. Another prominent attorney who began representing Epstein during the state investigation was New York City attorney Gerald Lefcourt, 4 Epstein’s background has been extensively researched and reported in the media. See, e.g., L

ypassed Villafaña and phoned Lourie, with whom she had worked when she was an AUSA, to press for a meeting. Lourie agreed to meet with Sanchez and Lefcourt. Lourie explained to Villafaña that Sanchez was concerned that federal charges were “imminent,” wanted to meet with the USAO and “make a pitch,” an

he child exploitation cases in West Palm Beach, along with other criminal matters. In 2006, she was designated as the USAO’s first coordinator for Project Safe Childhood, a new Department initiative focusing on child sexual exploitation and abuse.2 In 2006, Villafaña assumed responsibility for the Epstein investig

nent an •111.--· . bated: ___ _ Dated:---,--- it ALEXANI>ER ACOSTA, _ -- - ---·s·r· ATESATTO~Y UNITED _ - - . - - - - - - - -- - STETN - -- - - GERALD LEFCOURJ'; ESQ. _ 1N COUNSEL TO-JBF'FREY ~STE . LILLY ANN SA'Nqmz, ESQ. -- - - ATTORNEY FOR. JEPFR.EY EPSTEIN Page 12 ot1s FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, JO

hem. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: ___.___—- A. MARIE VJLLAFANA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Dated: Dated: JEFFREY EPSTEIN GERALD, LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN Dated^cA^-^" TILLY ANN SAN^TlZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 CA/Aronberg-000779 FILED: PALM BEACH

legations, and every fact described therein should be treated as an allegation. i Attachment(s): Download U.S, v Jeffrey Epstein Indictment Topic(s): Project Safe Childhood Component(s): USAO - New York. Southern Press Release Number: 19-211 i Updated July 9, 2019 CA/Aronberg-0009.18 FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH

tering; and that it would be “virtually impossible to comply” with four separate state registration requirements. A few minutes later, Sanchez sent Lefcourt’s phone number to Lourie “in case you want to speak to him directly.” In another email sent less than two hours later, Sanchez told Lourie she was

ta’s and Sloman’s “concerns about taking this case because of [the P]etit policy and a number of legal issues” and Acosta’s concerns about “hurting Project Safe Childhood.” Defense counsel raised myriad legal and factual challenges in their voluminous letters to the USAO. Defense submissions attacked the legal theo