Epstein Secrets

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:25 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USA

SDFL's "unilateral" decision is false. Before the SDFL decided to assign selection of the "attorney representative" to an independent third party, AUSA Marie Villafana had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he bad been recom

torney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he bad been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms. Villafana's account was misleading, as it omitted that this "good friend" was her live-in boyfriend, and that Mr. Ocariz was his former law-s

te as 625 F.Supp_id 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) Attachment—Continued Case 9 08.cv.130736 KAM Docunure 361 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10,2016 Page 2 Of 2 Villalana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Va alone, Arn Mae* C. (USAFLS) Iowa). Sofwvmtter ttl. Mt eM AM aayLelkostr Oven Ateremenle, Ili Jay - I was hoping three w

every 90 days." Id. Epstein appealed but Judge Pickholz's decision was unanimously af- firmed, on November 17, 2011, by a panel of five judges of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court. Peo- ple v. Epstein, 89 A.D.3d 570, 933 N.Y.S.2d 239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Notwithstanding Judge Pickholz's

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.”

tion in favor of the state. Although Mr. Epstein and the State Attorney’s Office had already reached a plea agreement, in August 2007, Mr. Sloman and AUSA Marie Villafana warned that they intended to prosecute Epstein federally unless his counsel (i.e., not the U.S. Attorney’s Office) sought more stringent conditions t

ppear at the sentencing. “Tve been spending some quality time with Title 18 [the U.S. criminal code] looking for misdemeanors,” the lead prosecutor, A. Marie Villafafia, wrote to Epstein’s lawyers on Sept. 13, 2007, adding that she was trying to find “a factual basis” for one or more non-sex-related crimes to charge

le documents under seal. This is not particular to People v. Epstein; it is routine across our appellate filings. My understanding is that it is also the Appellate Division’s (the court's) practice to maintain such seal. That being said, | have discussed your second question with our attorneys. If the Post petitions the c