Epstein Secrets

lm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Facsimile: (56!) 820-8777 July 10, 2008 NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM NOTICE: IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 3509(d) AND FLORIDA LAW, THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED EXCEPT IN CONNECTION WITH

e victim all asked to address the Court. I cited the CVRA and other statutes to support the Court's authority to hear from them. The second case was United States' Oliver, which was the Office's first case seeking the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL). Through these cases, I researched statutes, cases,

, and London, England. Ms. Villafafia remained in civil practice, specializing in intellectual property litigation until 2001, when she was hired by the United States Attorney's Office in Miami. While she enjoyed civil practice, Ms. Villafafia for many years had wanted to be an Assistant United States Attorney. T

ncrypted disks containing the exhibits referenced in her written response, and has emailed other exhibits that were not included on the disks. Mr. Ragsdale's letter also requested background information concerning AUSA Villafafia's professional background and experience. The remainder of this letter pro

, and London, England. Ms. Villafafia remained in civil practice, specializing in intellectual property litigation until 2001, when she was hired by the United States Attorney's Office in Miami. While she enjoyed civil practice m. many years had wanted to be an Assistant United States Attorney. Two early career

encrypted disks containing the exhibits referenced in er written response, and has emailed other exhibits that were not included on the disks. Mr. Ragsdale's letter also requested background information concerning Villafaiia's professional background and experience. The remainder of this letter provides

so investigating allegations stemming from the February 21, 2019 order issued by U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra, in Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 I. United States, 9:08-80736-CIV- MARRA (S.D. Fla.), in which Judge Marra concluded that the USAO violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (CVRA) by

on, for example, le]xplain why the USAO decided to initiate a federal grand jury investigation" (id. at 2). 15.Mprepared a 58-page response to Mr. Ragsdale's letter ("Response"), along with a 51-page timeline ("Timeline"), a 14-page chart summarizing victim notifications ("Chart"), a 10-page exhibit li

As noted above, OPR is investigating the conduct of members of the USAO underlying Judge Marra's Order in the matter of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States. The Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) broadly, that is, for uses that are "related fairly directly to some identifiable litigation,

for example, "[e]xplain why the USAO decided to initiate a federal grand jury investigation" (id. at 2). 16. I prepared a 58-page response to Mr. Ragsdale's letter ("Response"), along with a 51- page timeline ("Timeline"), a 14-page chart summarizing victim notifications ("Chart"), a 10-page exhibit li

I. Background on the Rulemaking The NLRA, enacted in 1935, is the Federal statute that regulates most private sector labor-management relations in the United States.1 Section 7 of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. 157, guarantees that Employees shall have the right to self- organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizat

conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees. * * * * * It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they h

working conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees. * * * * * It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when

of this statutory provision. In fact, earlier this year, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. United States 1° (discussed more fully below), unanimously reaffirming the principle that a general grant of rulemaking authority fully suffices to confer legislative

f the Act. 29 U.S.C. 156. A determination of necessity under Section 6 made by the Board, as administrator of the NLRA, is entitled to deference. See Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81, 86 (2002). Furthermore, even in the absence of express rulemaking authority, “the power of an administra