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

ation (id). I specifically asked Mr. Menchel if he had any comments or concerns but received no response (id)17 On Monday, May 21, 2007, I wrote to Chief Menchel and FAUSA Sloman for "guidance" and "a sense of the direction where we are headed" (id. at 3). Again, no response. On that day, PBPD and save them

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

a fair trial."). 35 Regardless of that position, as noted earlier, the decision to resolve the case through a non-prosecution agreement was made by Chief Menchel, and his email of July 5, 2007 informed me that he was the person vested with the discretion to vary from any Department policy and that he had und

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

port any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. See attached Tab B, August 2, 2007 letter from Lilly Ann Sanchez to SDFL Criminal Division Chief Menchel, p.2, fn 1. Ironically, it is Epstein's "national" attorneys who are now representing to the Deputy Attorney General of the United States in their M

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

port any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. See attached Tab B, August 2, 2007 letter from Lilly Ann Sanchez to SDFL Criminal Division Chief Menchel, p.2, fn 1. Ironically, it is Epstein's "national" attorneys who are now representing to the Deputy Attorney General of the United States in their M