Epstein Secrets

involvement in this matter, and return responsibility for this case to the State of Florida. 17 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001686 EFTA00209865 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Jay Lefkowitz [[email protected]] Sent: y, September 27, 2007 2:53 PM To: , Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject:

500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401- 5933. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: A. MARIE VILLAFASIA Assistant United States Attorney Enclosures cc: Special Agent E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, FBI 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001701 EFTA00209880 Atter

A00209852 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Congress to speak more clearly and keeps courts from making criminal law in Congress's stead." Slip op. at 6.I In Cuellar, the Court examined the link between the money-laundering statute's mens rea requirement and the underlying elements of the offense. After a careful

o Suprems Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen'. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing such elasticity in federal criminal statutes, including those enacted to protect important fede

in order to convict Mr. Epstein. Indeed, just this week (and after two years of federal involvement in this matter), Assistant United States Attorney Villafana re-initiated the federal grand jury investigation—in direct contravention of the parties’ Non Prosecution Agreement—and issued yet another subpoena s

to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court’s very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court’s interpretive methodology when it comes to federal criminal law—powerfully demonstrate the subst

to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court’s very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court’s interpretive methodology when it comes to federal criminal law—powerfully demonstrate the subst

ase at the Earliest Stage 4, In early November of 2006, Epstein’s lawyers had their initial contact with the newly assigned line federal prosecutor, A. Marie Villafana. Although it is extremely unusual for a First Assistant United States Attorney to participate in such a communication, FAUSA Jeffrey Sloman was prese

proval because her subpoena was not directed to “an office physically located within an attorney’s office.” See Tab 18, December 13, 2007 Letter from M. Villafana at 4n.1. This answer clearly suggests that Ms. Villafana had intentionally misled the Department officials about the items that her subpoena sought.”