Epstein Secrets

ted in her 2017 declaration that she “never told Attorney Edwards that the state charges involved ‘other victims,’

t Epstein, but did not proactively inform the victims’ attorneys about the NPA. In a 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, victims’ attorney Bradley Edwards alleged that during telephone calls with Villafaña, he “asked very specific questions about what stage the investigation was in,” and Villafaña rep

he investigation was in,” and Villafaña replied that she could not answer his questions because the matter “was an on-going active investigation.” Edwards stated that Villafaña gave him “the impression that the Federal investigation was on-going, very expansive, and continuously growing, both in the n

randa, and federal indictments. The USAO also provided OPR with access to filings, productions, and privileged material in the CVRA litigation; Outlook data collected to respond to production requests in that case; a set of Epstein case documents maintained by Acosta and Sloman; computer files regar

During this time period, Villafana and the case agents interacted with several victims and their attorneys, and Villafana contacted victims’ attorney Bradley Edwards to encourage him to attend the state court plea hearing, but she did not inform victims or Edwards of the NPA or the resolution of the federal invest

and Villafana contacted victims’ attorney Bradley Edwards to encourage him to attend the state court plea hearing, but she did not inform victims or Edwards of the NPA or the resolution of the federal investigation. As described in Part One of this chapter, after the NPA was signed, the FBI case agent and

ated in her 2017 declaration that she “never told Attorney Edwards that the state charges involved ‘other victims,’

n memoranda, and federal indictments. The USAO also provided OPR with access to filings, productions, and privileged material in the CVRA litigation; Outlook data collected to respond to production requests in that case; a set ofEpstein case documents maintained by Acosta and Sloman; computer files regardi

appellate to resolve? Thanks. From: Paul Cassell [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:59 AM To: USAFLS); , . I. (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS); Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Are you going to confer with us? Des It has been nearly two weeks since we sent this request to you, and we haven't heard anything ba

USAFLS); , . I. (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS); Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Are you going to confer with us? D

pending ruling on the government's motion to dismiss entered November 8, 2011 [DE #123] is LIFTED." I checked back into my CM/ECF notifications on Outlook, and did not find any for D.E. 123. I checked the docket sheet, which indicates a sealed order being entered on November 9, 2011, which is D.E. U 12

L 33461 Phone: (561) 582-7600 Fax: (561) 588-8819 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-8081 I Brad Edwards, Esq. Law Office of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC 2028 Harrison Street, Suite 202 Hollywood, FL 33020 Phone: (954) 414-8033 Fax: (954) 924-1530

ation (e.g., .AV! and .MOV files); 9. Databases (e.g., Access, Oracle, SQL Server data, SAP); 10. Contact and Relationship Management Data (e.g., Outlook, ACTI); 11. Calendar and Diary Application Data (e.g., Outlook PST, blog entries); 12. Online Access Data (e.g., Temporary Internet Files, Histor