Epstein Secrets

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

overnment 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. Epstein's counsel t

te commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(1), with minor females, in violation of Title 18, United States Cod; Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); (3) using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commer

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

was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA 's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The "Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was] an orchestrated decision [between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein] to d

nd date a copy of this letter in the space provided below as an acknowledgment that you have received, read, EFTA00206895 Re: Jane Does #1 and #2 I. United States Case No.: 9:08-cv-80736-KAM November 2, 2010 Page -4- Privileged Communication and agree to comply with the preservation instructions contained i

1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The "Jane Doe NI and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was] an orchestrated decision [between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein] to d

of Litigation Hold Letter: I acknowledge that I have received and read the Litigation Hold letter dated November 2, 2010 regarding Jane Does #1 and Itli United States, Case No.: 08-80736-CP/-MARRA/Johnson and I have taken and agree to continue to take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the documents and da

1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The "Jane Doe NI and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was] an orchestrated decision [between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein] to d

to communications between the USAO-SDFIA and counsel for Jeffrey Epstein EFTA00189807 AUSA Deputy Chief Criminal ivision Re: Jane Does #1 and #2 I. United States Case No.: 9:08-cv-80736-KAM November 4, 20(0 Page -2- Privileged Communication "that (i)s highly relevant to the treatment of Jane Doe #1 and Jan

1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at 1¶3-6). The "Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was) an orchestrated decision (between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein) to d