Epstein Secrets

k that physical force against the person . . . or another may be used in t the course of committing the offense." 18 U.S.C. § 16(b). Post-Johnson v. United Sta , U.S. 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), a court might decide differently. See, e.g., Menendez Whitaker, 908 F.3d 467 (9'b Cir. 2018). Even if not a crime

considered for work release. At some point after the NPA was signed, USA Acosta was recused from the Epstein matter. AUSA John McMillan (still at USA0): Early in the investigation, I asked AUSA McMillan if he would serve as co-counsel on the case. Before I joined the West Palm Beach Office, AUSA M

rate contact with Epstein. (See Exhibit A-1.) One of the subpoenaed victims was Individual #28, who is referred to as Jane Doe #2 in the Jane Doe' United Stales litigation. When approached for an interview, Individual #28 refused to speak with the agents, and I remember S/A Kuyrkendall telling me that she fe

GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS SEALED ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO DISCLOSE GRAND JURY MATERIAL THIS MATTER has come before the Court on the United States' Sealed Application for Permission to Disclose Grand Jury Material and for Entry of a Protective Order. The Court has considered the Motion and find

25498 the auditorium to a more private area because I did not think it was a conversation meant for public consumption but they would not move. As the PSC Coordinator, I had overseen the invitations for the law enforcement representatives from the S.D. Fla., and Mr. Krischer had not been on the list. So I now won

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

uding in the non-prosecution agreement a provision incorporating 18 U.S.C. § 2255. As noted above, I became familiar with § 2255 through my work as the PSC Coordinator. I also was aware, as set forth in the victim notification letters that I prepared, that, under the CVRA, I was obligated to use my "best efforts"

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

out of the auditorium to I more private area because I did not think it was I conversation meant for public consumption but they would not move. As the PSC Coordinator, I had overseen the invitations 13 For example, Epstein claimed that the massages were legitimate "medical" massages, so I wanted to see if he was