Epstein Secrets

es should be brought to bear.”75 While the defense was reiterating its objections to the federal investigation, CEOS expressed its endorsement of Villafaña’s legal analysis and proposed charges. On July 18, 2007, CEOS Chief Oosterbaan emailed Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, stating that he had read Villa

Investigation ............................................20 5. October 2006 – February 2007: Epstein’s Defense Counsel Initiate Contact with Villafaña, Lourie, and Sloman, and Press for a Meeting ....................................................................................22 6. February

Federal Investigation Is Initiated, and the USAO Opens a Case File In early 2006, a West Palm Beach FBI Special Agent who worked closely with AUSA Ann Marie Villafaña on child exploitation cases—and who is referred to in this Report as “the case agent”—mentioned to Villafaña in “casual conversations” having learne

Chief] Oosterba[an] to participate by teleconference, thereby intercepting the DC meeting. Thoughts? Acosta told OPR that he had no concern about Departmental “scrutiny of the NPA scheme” and that “[i]f anything,” he was concerned whether the Department might direct the USAO to “drop this case.”96 2. Le

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

ted expansion of federal law to cover conduct that has always been exclusively within the core of state powers. At this point in time, the need for Departmental oversight is critical. We appreciate this opportunity to submit our assessment of the key facts in this case and review of the pertinent federal st

301 TELEPHONE (954) 487-8700 TELEFAX 0154/ 783-4.58 MAILING ADDRESS P. O. BOX 1778 FORT LAUDERDALE. FL 33302-1778 Grand Jury Subpoena Dear Ms. Villafana: on January 25, 2007, Agents" *Slater and with a grand jury'subpoena for my to appear on February 13,'2007. I indicate oss would assert her rig

pervisory responsibility over the subject matter, or his/her designee, when: 1. Prior consultation or approval would be required by a statute or by Departmental policy for a declination of prosecution or dismissal of a charge with regard to which the agreement is to be made; or 2. The person is: a. A high-

nail everything down, we just want to get a final blessing.” Negotiations continued throughout the day on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, with Villafaña and Lefkowitz exchanging emails regarding the factual proffer for a plea and the scheduling of a meeting to finalize the plea agreement’s terms. D

rosecution should Epstein renege on his agreement, and she outlined for Acosta and Sloman the steps she proposed to take while Epstein was pursuing Departmental review. Those steps included re-establishing contact with victims, interviewing victims in New York and one victim who lived in a foreign country,

residences, his criminal conduct had occurred in other locations; or whether the additional victims might implicate other offenders. In addition, Villafaña planned to approach the female assistants to attempt to obtain cooperation, but that step had not been taken.252 Most importantly, Acosta ended t

ent had the “right” to address Epstein’s concerns. He told OPR that because the USAO is part of the Department of Justice, if a defendant asks for Departmental review, it would be “unseemly” to object. During his OPR interview, Sloman described Acosta as very process-oriented, which he attributed to Acosta

nted expansion of federal law to cover conduct that has always been exclusively within the core of state powers. At this point in time, the need for Departmental oversight is critical. We appreciate this opportunity to submit our assessment of the key facts in this case and review of the pertinent federal stat

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.”