Epstein Secrets

US DeP•Mlilla I tr4 tram Race.” Fodor& AulaSciti Attailnistratien 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001697 EFTA00209876 U.S. Department of Justice United Slates Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 3340! (361)820-8711 Facsimile: (561)820-8777 May

ta United States Att A. Marie Assistant United States Attorney 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001698 EFTA00209877 05/15/2007 16:57 FAX 5618021787 USA0 WPB FL gaol TX REPORT IX#i TRANSMISSION OK Sals *****Atii************* TX/RX NO 4676 CONNECTION TEL 8358691 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST.

a result of the federal investigation], or acquittal on the merits shall be a bar to any subsequent federal prosecution for the same act or acts." U.S.A.M. § 9-2.031A (emphasis added). Consistent with that principle, and of particular relevance to this case, the Department itself just recently observed

inding that the defendant had an intent to persuade or to attempt to persuade.' United States I Murrell 368 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing United States'. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 638-39 (6th Cir.2000)). Thus, the targeted criminal conduct must occur through the interstate facility, not thereafter, and

ly aware, the Department's prior review of this matter was incomplete and, by its own admission, not "de novo." See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from A. Oosterbaan. Without considering the Non Prosecution Agreement that left this matter to be resolved in the State or any of the misconduct, CEOS reviewers, task

k that physical force against the person . . . or another may be used in t the course of committing the offense." 18 U.S.C. § 16(b). Post-Johnson v. United Sta , U.S. 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), a court might decide differently. See, e.g., Menendez Whitaker, 908 F.3d 467 (9'b Cir. 2018). Even if not a crime

considered for work release. At some point after the NPA was signed, USA Acosta was recused from the Epstein matter. AUSA John McMillan (still at USA0): Early in the investigation, I asked AUSA McMillan if he would serve as co-counsel on the case. Before I joined the West Palm Beach Office, AUSA M

rate contact with Epstein. (See Exhibit A-1.) One of the subpoenaed victims was Individual #28, who is referred to as Jane Doe #2 in the Jane Doe' United Stales litigation. When approached for an interview, Individual #28 refused to speak with the agents, and I remember S/A Kuyrkendall telling me that she fe

GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS SEALED ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO DISCLOSE GRAND JURY MATERIAL THIS MATTER has come before the Court on the United States' Sealed Application for Permission to Disclose Grand Jury Material and for Entry of a Protective Order. The Court has considered the Motion and find

nity control," and agree that the girls are victims for purposes of damages. Also includes deadlines for a plea and sentencing date 46 9/11/2007 A. Oosterbaan A. Marie Villafaiia Email re status of negotiations with attached correspondence 48 9/11/2007 Lefcourt Villafatia Email with 4 page NPA attac

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America,

espondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Privilege Log, which is attached hereto.

x #3 P-013554 Thru File folder labeled "E-mails Re Plea Negotiations" containing: ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Laurie to A. Marie Villafafta, A. Oosterbaan, R. Garcia re non-prosecution agreement, with attached correspondence; ■ 9/19/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Lourie, R. Garcia, K. A

e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Box #3 P-012089 Thru P-012129 United States' Response to Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas and Cross-Motion to Compel 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual

ation; Ordinary Government ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to Investigative Privilege Communication; No Attorney-Client A. Marie Villafafia, A. Oosterbaan, R. Garcia re non-prosecution agreement, with attached correspondence; Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against P

mail chain from Jeff Sloman to Andrew Oosterbaan, Marie Villafana, and Alex Acosta regarding Epstein meeting 8/ 7/ 200- Reply of Jeffrey Epstein to United States' Response to His Motion to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas and Cross-Motion to Compel and Sealed Document Tracking Form 8/8/2007 Andre

nity control," and agree that the girls are victims for purposes of damages. Also includes deadlines for a plea and sentencing date 46 9/11/2007 A. Oosterbaan A. Marie Villafaila Email re status of negotiations with attached correspondence 48 9/11/2007 Lefcourt Villafafia Email with 4 page NPA attac

counsel appearing on the attached service list. /s Dexter A. Lee Assistant United States Attorney II EFTA00191209 SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 4 United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,

x #3 P-013554 Thai File folder labeled "E-mails Re Plea Negotiations" containing: ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to A. Marie Villafafta, A. Oosterbaan, R. Garcia re non-prosecution agreement, with attached correspondence; ■ 9/19/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Louric, R. Garcia, K. A

andatory for wire fraud only if the government exercises its discretion to seek such forfeiture. See 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a); United States v. Liquidators of European Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing procedure for forfeiture). "[T]he Government retains b

ation; Ordinary Government ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to Investigative Privilege Communication; No Attorney-Client A. Marie Villafatia, A. Oosterbaan, IL Garcia re non-prosecution agreement, with attached correspondence; Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Pub

ely aware, the Department’s prior review of this matter was incomplete and, by its own admission, not “de novo.” See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from A. Oosterbaan. Without considering the Non Prosecution Agreement that left this matter to be resolved in the State or any of the misconduct, CEOS reviewers, tasked

iminal statutes, including those enacted to protect important federal interests. In cases involving the federalization of activity that is within the States’ historic police power, Congress must speak with particular clarity. See, e.g., Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989). 12

tter points out (CEOS letter at p. 3), I was a member of CEOS. In fact, I served as a federal prosecutor for twelve years; five years as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia, and seven years at CEOS. I began working as a trial attorney for CEOS in 1999, and was pr