Epstein Secrets

10T1 GEN I l OFFICE OF TH£ SOLICITOR GENERAL OFFICE SOLICI GEN OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS OFfl, JUSTJ, PROGi EXEWTIVE O"ICE FOil THE UNITED STATB EXEWTI1 O"ICEF UNITED OFFICE OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION OFH DISPI RESOLI ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMUNITY OIIIENTED CIVIL RIGKTS -- DMS

RAL -- CRIMINAL IIUUAUOI' IN\lfSTlGATlON DIVISION DRUG BUREAU OF tNFCRClMENT -- AOMlfflSTRATION PRISONS EXEQITlVE UNITfD STATB Ol'RCEFOR -- UNITED STATl'S MARSHALS SERVICE ATTOIINEYS UNITED U.S.NATIONAL STATES -- CENTIIAL BUREAU ATTORNEYS INT1'RPOI. IUIIIAU OF OfFKEOl' THE Al.<Oo<OI., -- FED

fice for the Northern District of Georgia. 7 United States Attorney First Assistant United States Attorney Criminal Chief Managing Assistant United Stales Attorney West Palm Beach Office Assistant United States Attorney - - - -- May 23, 2006 i"' USAO opens federal • '-)~i:t~·tt:ier~~: F1IIiia U

fices, and provide legal expertise and policy guidance. Among the Criminal Division components mentioned in this Report are the Appellate Section, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, and, most prominently, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). CEOS, based in

at issue here is traditional ly a4 state concern because the activity is entirely local, and that the typical prosecution under federal policy that a United States Attomey’s Office should not pursue a prosecution. We do not think Simply, the commercial sexual exploitation of children is a federal concern, even

court. ; DATE: (BY) DEAUTY CLERK apenas, SCE This subpoena is issued upon application Name, Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S. “Attomey of the United Statcs.of America Ann Marie C. Villafata, Assistant U.S. Attomey Ya P\f yy. fy 500 So. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6235 Tel: (S61) 820-8711

federal prosecution. We have discussed the factual and legal issues you raise with the Criminal Division’s Appellate Section, and we consulted with the Office of Enforcement Operations concerning the petite policy. We are examining the narrow question as to whether there is a legitimate basis for the U.S. Attorney’s Office to proce

the interest of fair and effective law enforcement within their individual judicial districts. USAM §§ 9-2.001, 9-27.140. As stated in the USAM, “[t]he United States Attorney is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such [prosecutive] authorit

the anonymity of his clients by preventing disclosure of their identities to the CVRA petitioners. See Response to Court Order of July 6, 2015 and United States’ Notice of Partial Compliance (July 24, 2015). It is noteworthy that in 2020, when OPR attempted to contact victims, through their counsel, for inte

erfered improperly with the state’s authority. He explained his reasoning to OPR: 245 In 2008, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the office charged with reviewing Petite policy waiver requests, opined that even if the Petite policy applied with respect to the victims of the i

e following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Tide 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted

delker and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (AAG) Alice S. Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division's Appellate Section and the Office of Enforcement Operations regarding the petit policy. 1Mr. Menchel resigned for private practice onAngust 3 2007 and was replaced by Robert Senior, 08-80736-CV-MARR.A P-014

following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted

delker and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (AAG) Alice S. Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division's Appellate Section and the Office of Enforcement Operations regarding the petit policy. 'Mr. Menchel resigned for private practice on August 3, 2007 and was replaced by Robert Senior. EFTA00190438 By May 2

following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, § 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under § 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted of an enume

delker and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (AAG) Alice S. Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division's Appellate Section and the Office of Enforcement Operations regarding the petit policy. By May 2007, AUSA Villafafia began seeking approval from her supervisors to indict Epstein. Her immediate supervisor wa

following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted

delker and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (AAG) Alice S. Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division's Appellate Section and the Office of Enforcement Operations regarding the petit policy. Mr. Menchel resigned for private_practice on August 3 2007 and was replaced by Robert Senior_ 08;80736-CV-MARRA P-0149

following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, § 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under § 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted of an enume

delker and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (AAG) Alice S. Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division's Appellate Section and the Office of Enforcement Operations regarding the petit policy. By May 2007, AUSA Villafaila began seeking approval from her supervisors to indict Epstein. Her immediate supervisor wa

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

ive witnesses, Mr. Epstein and his attorneys.! Not surprisingly, Ms. Villafana issued this subpoena without the requisite prior approval by the DOJ’s Office of Enforcement Operations. See United States Attorneys’ Manual, § 9-13.410. When confronted, she misleadingly responded that she had consulted with the Department of Justice a

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