Epstein Secrets

rk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. Assistant United United States Attorney SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN United States District Court, Southern District of

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

entified individuals." The letter further proposed that the attorney representative for the victims be instructed that "[Otte details regarding the United States's investigation of this matter and its resolution with Mr. Epstein is confidential. You may not make public statements regarding this matter."" 62. O

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.

etter did not inform the victims of how this applied to them. '66 150. The victim notification letters also state that there was "litigation between the United States and two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein." The letters did not explain that

/18/08 Lefkowitz Ltr to AMCV" containing handwritten draft notes for proposed letter to J. Lefkowitz; 5/22/07 e-mail from to M. re meeting with G. Lefcourt with attached email from G. Lefcourt re solicitation for meetings Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Suppl. Box #3 P-013304 Thru P-013325

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

approval) promised to close the money-laundering investigation "if the sex offense case is resolved." See Tab 23, August 16, 2007 Letter from M. to G. Lefcourt ("In other words, if the sex offense case is resolved, the Office would close its investigation into other areas as well. The matter has not been,

ction 2422(b) expressly requires that the crime be committed "knowingly," and that requisite mental element applies as to each element of the crime. United Slates v, XCitement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 68.69 (1994); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 718 (9lh Cir. 2004); United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222,

imited to sex trafficking that involves children or is accomplished by force, fraud, or coercion." United States v. Evans 476 F.3d at 1179 n. 1. Sec aho United States v, Sims, 171 Fed. 3505-019 Page 19 of 63 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00003291 EFTA00157673 ALLEN GUTHR

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

ically underscore these principles and help to highlight why federal prosecution in this case would be improper as a matter of both law and policy. See United States v. Santos, No. 06-1005 (June 2, 2008); Cuellar v. United States, No. 06-1456 (June 2, 2008). Though they both address the interpretation and applica

approval) promised to close the money-laundering investigation "if the sex offense case is resolved." See Tab 23, August 16, 2007 Letter from I. to G. Lefcourt ("In other words, if the sex offense case is resolved, the Office would close its investigation into other areas as well. The matter has not been,

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

ll disclose even more. If meeting is held, Villafaiii will ask to have the case reassigned. Attached email correspondence between Andrew Laurie and G. Lefcourt 28/C-4 5/31/2007 Subpoena to J. Epstein Virgin Islands Foundation, Inc. (return date 6/21/07) 5/31/2007 Subpoena to J. Epstein & Company, Inc. (re

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

o J. Lefkowitz; 5/22/07 e- mail from A. Lourie to M. Menchel, J. Sloman, A. Marie Villafafia re meeting with G. Lefcourt with attached email from G. Lefcourt re solicitation for meetings Work Product Government Communication; No Attorney- Client Relationship; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding

jections P-0133303 proposed letter to J. Lefkowitz; 5/22/07 e- mail from A. Lourie to M. Menchel, J. Sloman, A. Marie Villafafia re meeting with G. Lefcourt with attached email from G. Lefcourt re solicitation for meetings Work Product Government Communication; No Attorney- Client Relationship; Claims

to undcdakc discussion with the Slate Attomey's Office Ia custom caswpiiiiitim with these procedures. which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' intero.t, pursuant to the Petite policy. We reiterate that this case was at heart a local mutter that was being billy addressed by the state crimi

ugh such misconduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United States Attorney's Office in Miami (''USAO"). Moreover. CEOS did not assess the terms of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement now in effect, nor did CEOS revi

approval) promised to close the money-laundering investigation "if the sex offense case is resolved." See Tab 23, August 16, 2007 Letter froze to G. Lefcourt ("In other words, if the sex offense case is resolved, the Office would close its investigation into other areas as well. The matter has not been,

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.

"8/18/08 Lefkowitz Ltr to AMCV" containing handwritten draft notes for proposed letter to J. Lefkowitz; 5/22/07 e-mail from to re meeting with G. Lefcourt with attached email from G. Lefcourt re solicitation for meetin s Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Suppl. Box #3 P-013304 Thru P-013325

witness statements and other innocuous evidence. In addition, we understand that Ms. Villafana was also reprimanded at a special hearing convened by a United States District Judge in the West Palm Beach Division of the Southern District of Florida for making misrepresentations during a prior sentencing proceedi

g that the federal government could always find a way to indict Mr. Epstein even well after he completed the sentence required of him under the NPA. See United States' Response to Court's Order Requesting Position on Defendant's Motion to Stay, fn. 5, pp. 14-15. Moreover, Ms. Villafana served written notice on Mr

l) promised to close the money-laundering investigation only "if the sex offense case is resolved." See August 16, 2007 Letter from M. Villafana to G. Lefcourt ("In other words, if the sex offense case is resolved, the Office would close its investigation into other areas as well. The matter has not been,

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

o J. Lefkowitz; 5/22/07 e- mail from A. Lourie to M. Menchel, J. Sloman, A. Marie Villafafta re meeting with G. Lefcourt with attached email from G. Lefcourt re solicitation for meetings Work Product Government Communication; No Attorney- Client Relationship; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding

jections P-0133303 proposed letter to J. Lefkowitz; 5/22/07 e- mail from A. Lourie to M. Menchel, J. Sloman, A. Marie Villafafta re meeting with G. Lefcourt with attached email from G. Lefcourt re solicitation for meetings Work Product Government Communication; No Attorney- Client Relationship; Claims

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

) promised to close the money-laundering investigation “if the sex offense case is resolved.” See Tab 23, August 16, 2007 Letter from M. Villafana to G. Lefcourt (“In other words, if the sex offense case is resolved, the Office would close its investigation into other areas as well. The matter has not been, an

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