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

s know if Epstein did, in fact, apply for work release. We never received any notice of Epstein's application. Instead, on November 20, 2008, when Gauger stopped by to see Karen Atkinson on another matter, he told her that Epstein had been on work release for the past few weeks (Exhibit 82). S/A Kuyrk

other instances where 5 counsel other than myself, not in the civil aspects, where 6 allegations have been made and letters have been sent by the 7 United States suggesting that there's been a violation of the 8 NPA. And under those circumstances, some notification was 9 provided. 10 THE COURT: Did it have

0:21 until 37:23 urge 22:9 use 1015 11:8 2014 23:11 28:25 40:11 used 28:19 US 2:15 4:10 7:1,9 8:6 12:8,12 16:16 26:19 27:4,18,19 43:5,11,25 U.S.A 2:16 U.S.0 33:7 various 3:1 10:25 very 4:21 5:711:1,2 11:20 12:21 16:19 16:24 17:12,12 23:1129:4 32:1 35:18 38:10 40:18 42:2 43:18 44:14 Via

her restrain them from notifying the Sheriffs Office if Mr. Epstein was not abiding by the work release rules. As I previously mentioned to Colonel Gauger, the decision regarding work release is completely within the discretion of the Sheriff's Office. The purpose of this letter is simply to provide y

other instances where 5 counsel other than myself, not in the civil aspects, where 6 allegations have been made and letters have been sent by the 7 United States suggesting that there's been a violation of the 8 NPA. And under those circumstances, some notification was 9 provided. 10 THE COURT: Did it have

1 until 37:23 urge 22:9 use 10:25 11:8 20:24 23:11 28:25 40:11 used 28:19 U.S 2:15 4:10 7:1,9 8:6 12:8,12 16:16 26:19 27:4,18,19 43:5,11,25 U.S.A 2:16 U.S.0 33:7 various 3:1 1025 very 4:21 5:711:1,2 11:20 12:21 16:19 16:24 17:12,12 23:11 29:4 32:1 35:18 38:10 40:18 42:2 43:18 44:14 Via

er restrain them from notifying the Sheriff's Office if Mr. Epstein was not abiding by the work release rules. As I previously mentioned to Colonel Gauger, the decision regarding work release is completely within the discretion of the Sheriff's Office. The purpose of this letter is simply to provide y

internal as I tried to deal professionally with opposing counsel. In the midst of all of the post-NPA back-and-forth with Epstein, was the Jane Doe. United States litigation.4 Despite the Office's request to be recused from the case, the Justice Department decided that there was no conflict of interest and I w

o let us know if Epstein did, in fact, apply for work release. We never received any notice ofas application. Instead, on November 20, 2008, when Gauger stopped by to see on another matter he told her that Epstein had been on work release for the past few weeks (Exhibit 82). Sil spoke with the work