Epstein Secrets

TE OF FLORIDA no • '^cn, For Palm Beach County, at the Spring Term thereof, in the-year of our Lord Two ThouSg^d IWd Six. to-wit: The Grand Jurors of the State of-Florida, inquiring^ Beach, upon their oaths do present that JEFFREYX. EPSTEIN in> the County of Palm Beach aforesaid, inthe Circuit and State. aforesaid, COU

th State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State Attorney's Office,·•~t the interests of ihe United St,ates, the State of Fl9rid!I, and the Dc(en<hlnt will be· served by thc.{Qllowing procedure;. ' THEREFORE, on the authority of R.Alexander Acosta, United,States Attomey'for t

o tt:ie evil exc1mple. of. all ot_hers, ·and :against 'the:peace and:digr,,ity•of the State,· • '\ • • • - • • • • I '-. ,• • • • ,of Floriga, .I hereby c • • • • • . • • t~f.i~ '1(WYetUrn,ing this indictment as.au,ttiorfzed.and,required by'iaw'. , ' . : . ~ ... ·:; , . . ·- ,

The foregoi ng instru in ent was sworn to or affirmed b'eforeme this 1st day of May,ZOObyb) Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. State of Elorida County ofTa Im Beach Signatu^w^rr^stAig Officer Signature of Police-Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) Date: WOlgOW T’npe <>f 22 CA/Aronberg-000825 FILED: PALM

tch them have intercourse and masturbate himself. Occasionally, Epstein would then join in The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed State of Florida/ before me this I5* day of May, 2006 by County of Palm/Beach Det Joe Recarey, who is personally known to me. /k I Signature/ ing Officer Signature of

STATE OF FLORIDA ] For Palm Beach County, at the Spring Term thereof, in the-year of our Lord Two Thousand and Six, to-wit: The'GrandjJurors of-ttie'.StaJe'of Florida; inquinngJmand (or the/body, of said County of PalrruBeach. ypon their paths do present that JEFFREYS. EPSTEIN in the'County of Palm‘Beach aforesaid,

ther underage girls to engage. in similar sex acts for money, He committed these offenses in locations including New York, New York, and Palm Beach, Fiorida. EPSTEiN is e~pecfed to be- presented in M~nh_attan fedt:?rc:il cggri this aftemopn before U,$, Magistrate Judge Hen_ry B, P_itman, The case is assi

Belohlavek told OPR that the Chief of the Police Department would not regularly play a role in the state victim notification process. 427 Although Villafafia's notes indicate that she researched Florida Statutes§§ 960.001 and 921.143 when she drafted unsent lcllcrs to victims in November and December 2007

d resolved the federal investigation, and some victims only learned of the state court pleas and sentencing from the news media. In the end, although Villafafia and Sloman hastily attempted to ensure victim notification through Chief Reiter, their effort was too little and too late to ensure that victims had

ding over his or her case for further Sninsutihtsliac t rearm of the nrissidinlandes_________ (e) If placed on Electronic Monkeying you will pay to the Stare of Florida, (or the cost of Electronic Monitoring SI .00 per day, per PS. 94.09, • DeignztAt . (,,LAr • („.. rcci cs; ti Wei, Eng t17131 CONDITIONS (n) Y

tes Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ms. Villafafia: July 22, 2011 EAVAILADDREMS Roy Black forwarded to me your letter to hlm dated July 21, 2011, from the District Attomey of the County of New Yor

the litigation of his abuse of process claim against Edwards. For support, he relies primarily on the decision of Wolfe v. Foreman, 2013 WL 3724763 (Fla. 3d DCA July 17, 2013), wherein the Third District found that the litigation privilege barred both an abuse of process claim and a malicious prosecut

he United States Attorney's Office prepared negotiated lea agreements containing these charges. For example, in a September 18, 2007, email from AUSA Villafafia to Lefkowitz (attached hereto as Exhibit “H’), she attached the proposed plea agreement describing Epstein’s witness tampering as follows: "UNITED

been negotiated with Epstein’s attorneys that would block federal sussecution, To the contrary, AUSA Villafafia mentioned a possible indictment. AUSA Villafafia did indicate that federal investigators had concrete evidence and information that Epstein had sexually molested many underage minor females, includi

response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule “is both logical and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the conseque

been negotiated with Epstein’s attorneys that would block federal prosecution. To the contrary, AUSA Villafafia mentioned a possible indictment. AUSA Villafafia did indicate that federal investigators had concrete evidence and information that Epstein had sexnatly molested many underage minor females, includi