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

, and there is no evidence that Palm Beach County authorities and Florida prosecutors cannot effectively prosecute and punish the conduct. See also Batchelder'. Gonzalez, No. 4:07-cv-00330-SPM- AK, 2007 WL 5022105 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2007). In fact, the opposite is true--the state-elected officials, cogniz

ovision expanded as [USAO-SDFL prosecutor Maria] Villafana and defense counsel exchanged drafts of, first,

edged that investigators were aware of Epstein's longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well- known socialite, but, according to Villafaha, in 2007, they "didn't have any specific evidence against her." Accordingly, Villafaila believed that the only "co-conspirators" of Epstein who wou

es v. Barlow, 732 F. Supp. 2d 1 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) 207, 208, 210 United States v. Barnes, 520 F. Supp. 2d 510 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 207 United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979) 173 United States v. Bejasa, 904 F.2d 137 (2d Cir. 1990) 182 United States v. Bellomo, 263 F. Supp. 2d 561 (E.D.N.Y. 2003

puty Chief, Northern Region), and AUSA Anna Marie Villafana. Mr. Epstein retained counsel with expertise in

Jeffrey Sloman (First Assistant U.S. Attorney), Matthew Menchel (Chief, Criminal Division), Andrew Lourie (Deputy Chief, Northern Region), and AUSA Anna Marie Villafana. Mr. Epstein retained counsel with expertise in federal law and federal jurisdiction, including a former federal appellate judge, a former United S

prosecute and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury are decisions that generally rest in the prosecutor's discretion." United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 . . . (1979); see Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 . . . (1978). Fokker Services, 818 F.3d at 741. Accordingly, judicia

ment, the defendant asks the Court to order discovery and conduct a hearing. In short, 10 The OPR Report further reflects that in OPR's interview of Villafana, she reported that she did not have anyone in mind aside from the four individuals named in the "co-conspirator" provision: "Villafaiia told OPR th

.D.N.Y. 2010), aff'd, 479 F. App'x 372 (2d Cir. 2012) 300, 302 United States v. Barnes, 520 F. Supp. 2d 510 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 300 United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979) 265 United States v. Bejasa, 904 F.2d 137 (2d Cir. 1990) 274 United States v. Bellomo, 263 F. Supp. 2d 561 (E.D.N.Y. 2003

edged that investigators were aware of Epstein's longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well- known socialite, but, according to Villafana, in 2007, they "didn't have any specific evidence against her." Accordingly, Villafaila believed that the only "co-conspirators" of Epstein who wou

.D.N.Y. 2010), aff'd, 479 F. App'x 372 (2d Cir. 2012) 300, 302 United States v. Barnes, 520 F. Supp. 2d 510 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 300 United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979) 265 United States v. Bejasa, 904 F.2d 137 (2d Cir. 1990) 274 United States v. Bellomo, 263 F. Supp. 2d 561 (E.D.N.Y. 2003

”), and there is no evidence that Palm Beach County authorities and Florida prosecutors cannot effectively prosecute and punish the conduct. See also Batchelder v. Gonzalez, No. 4:07-cv-00330-SPM- AK, 2007 WL 5022105 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2007). In fact, the opposite is true—the state-elected officials, cogniza

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.”