Epstein Secrets

overnment which may be favorable to the defendant on the issues of guilty or punishment within the scope of Brady. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United Stales, Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." See, e.g., Standing Discovery Order, United States' Enriquez, No. 1:10-CR-20488- MGC (July 9, 2010) (doc. #115). These

/21/2011 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANDE DOE #2 I. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION TO USE CORRESPONDENCE TO PROVE VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHT ACT AND TO HAVE THEIR UNREDACTED PLEADI

ners argue that the Court should accept their Statement as true, despite its conclusory allegations and internal inconsistencies, solely because of the United States' failure to stipulate to the Statement. The Court should deny the motion because: (1) Petitioners have misstated that United States' efforts at reach

respond to the victims' motion for a finding of violation of the CVRA is untimely, as that is when the victims must begin drafting reply pleadings. See United States! Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1516 (nth Cir. 1983) (listing factors to be considered in determining whether motion to intervene is timely). CERT

6) ("Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction"); Waytel United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985) (the decision whether to prosecute is "particularly ill-suited to judicial review," and "not readily susceptible to th

llowed those other victims to participate while maintaining some semblance of privacy. Petitioners also reiterate baseless allegations made against AUSA Villafaila regarding the choice of the attorney-representative for the victims, despite knowing that: (1) the issue of the attorney-representative arose after

until, at the earliest, a suspect's initial appearance before a judicial officer. U.S. Const. Amend. 6. *1246 On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, D.C. Docket No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Attorneys and Law Firms Paul Cassell, University of Utah Co

words of the statute as they are commonly and ordinarily understood and must construe the statute so each of its provisions is given full effect." P United States it McLymont, 45 F.3d 400, 401 (I I th Cir. 1995). Therefore, "[w]e do not look at one word or term in isolation, but instead we look to the entire

nt Venture, 245 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir. 2001). We are bound to "presume that Congress said what it meant and meant what it said." Id. (quoting P. United States it Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 1998) (en bane)); see alsol° Keene Corp., 508 U.S. at 208, 113 S.Ct. 2035. Therefore, under the plain la

the Majority, Judge Tjoflat's concurring opinion, and I agree that the Executive has exclusive and complete authority over charging decisions. See? li United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) ("[T]he Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to deci

e a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." Further, on January 31, 2008, Wild met with AUSA Villafaila, FBI agents, and another federal prosecutor, provided additional details of Epstein's sexual abuse of her, and expressed her hope that Epstein woul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 and #2 I. UNITED STATES JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS The parties hereby stipulate and agree that the following facts are not in dispute and may be accepted as true

ensued between the United States and Epstein. Despite the investigation revealing that Epstein had molested more than 40 minor girls, in Late 2007, the United Stales entered into a non- prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein - esseNiatly egree:ng to immunize Epstein for al of the Federal Sex crimes he committed

copy of the terms was not provided. A notification was not provided to Jane Doe #2 because the agreement limited Epstein's liability to victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. As a result, Jane Doe #2 never received a notification a letter about the agreement. The-rietifieation4id-net

on the [NPA] when seeking civil relief against Epstein . . . and affirmatively advanced the terms of the [NPA] as a basis for relief from Epstein." United States' Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Doc. 205-6 at 12-13. After reaping the benefits of the NPA, the

ie Villafana secured pro bono counsel to represent Jane Doe #1. Pro bono counsel was able to assist Jane Doe #1 in avoiding the improper deposition. AUSA Villafaila secured pro bono counsel by contacting Meg Garvin, Esq. of the the National Crime Victims' Law Center in Portland, Oregon, which is based in the Le

employee as the source of the information. (2) Appearance. A former employee makes an appearance when he is physically present before an employee of the United Slates, in either a formal or informal setting. Although an appearance also may be accompanied by certain communications, an appearance need not involve an

id not participate as a Government employee. Example 7 to paragraph (hX2): An employee of the Department of State participated in the development of the United States' position with respect to a proposed treaty with a foreign government concerning transfer of ownership with respect to a parcel of real property and

esolving prisoner disputes. Construing the CVRA in the way that "See 18 U.S.C. § 113 (assault within territorial jurisdiction of the United States); United States. Anderson, 528 F.2d 590, 591 (5th Cir. 1976) (in prosecution for assault with intent to commit murder within territorial jurisdiction of United Stat

tters in approximately June 2007 [Jane Doe #1] and August 2006 [Jane Doe #2) wherein they were advised of this right and given the phone numbers of AUSA Villafaila, FBI Special Agent Kuyrkendall, and the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime. The letters specifically advised that if the Petitioners

0081049 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 36 of 101 Conclusion For the reasons set forth above and in the United States' Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, the United States respectfully requests that this Court enter an order dismissing

itution. See In re W.R. Huff 409 F.3d at 563. The statute pursuant to which Petitioners urge this Court to award restitution, however, does not make the United States liable for restitution for harms caused by others. Therefore, Petitioners are not entitled to restitution in this case. 5. Remaining Relief Request

2005) (recognizing that the CVRA does not require notice of public court proceedings based on violations of state criminal law), and, in any event, AUSA Villafaila provided Petitioners with pre-hearing notice of those state proceeding — in which Epstein pled guilty to state criminal charges — upon the governme

whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United Slates, Epstein's signature on this agreement is not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability other than that contained in 18 U.

mate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of incarceration. 13. The parties anticipate that t

. Next, you assert that our letter miscb aractetizes Mr. Epstein's obligation to pay damages to the victims. To avoid that suggestion, I have asked AUSA Villafaila to simply quote the terms of the Agreement directly into the Notification Letter. We also have no objection to referring to Mr. Epstein as a "sexua

harges being filed against Epstein. A notification was not provided to Jane Doe #2 because the agreement limited Epstein's liability to victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. On July 11, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the victims' emergency motion. During the hearing, the Governm

t 08/01/2008 Page 8 of 16 On about July 3, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 learned, through telephones conversations had between Mr. Edwards and AUSA Villafaila, that the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein might be in the process of finalizing some sort of plea arrangement. Accordingly, they filed an emerge

n who may have civil damages claims against Mr. Epstein. The U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (jointly referred to as the "United States") have conducted an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein regarding his solicitation of minor females in Palm Beach County to engage in prostitution. Mr

t the United States Attorney's Office prepared negotiated plea agreements containing these charges. For example, in a September 18, 2007, email from AUSA Villafaila to Lefkowitz (attached hereto as Exhibit "H"), she attached the proposed plea agreement describing Epstein's witness tampering as follows: "UNITED

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

e 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 was Andrew Lourie. Mr. Lourie had served as the Chief of the