Epstein Secrets

vil counsel consider 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131. Phone: Fax: EFTA00721999 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. Marie Villafana, Esq. March 5, 2010 Page 2 responsive motions that relate to the scope of waiver of liability that is memorialized in the NPA. Additionally, Mr.

1999 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. Marie Villafana, Esq. March 5, 2010 Page 2 responsive motions

the offense (e.g., 2004-5) govern the minimum statutory damage amount ($50,000 rather than $150,000) under ex post facto laws, see United States v. Scheidt, 2010 W.L. 144837 (E.D. Cal., 2010) (indicating that the statute in effect at the time of the violation governs the minimum damage remedy)? Black.

WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: s/A. Marie Villafana A. MARIE VILLAFANA Assistant United States Atto

. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: s/A. Marie Villafana A. MARIE VILLAFANA Assistant United States Atto

64(g)(1). See United States v. Speakman, 594 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 2010); United States v. Amara, 616 F. App'x 612 (4th Cir. 2015); United States v. Schmidt, 675 F.3d 1164 (8th Cir. 2012); United States v. Hagerman, 506 F. App'x 14 (2d Cir. 2012) (all discussing § 3664(g)(1)'s prohibition on requiring vi

. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone: 305.371.6421 • Fax: 305.358.2006 • vAwcRcyBlack.com EFTA00213279 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. Marie Villafana, Esq. March 5, 2010 Page 2 responsive motions that relate to the scope of waiver of liability that is memorialized in the NPA. Additionally, Mr.

3279 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. Marie Villafana, Esq. March 5, 2010 Page 2 responsive motions

the offense (e.g., 2004-5) govern the minimum statutory damage amount ($50,000 rather than $150,000) under ex post facto laws, see United States v. Scheidt 2010 W.L. 144837 (E.D. Cal., 2010) (indicating that the statute in effect at the time of the violation governs the minimum damage remedy)? Black.

. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone: 305.371.6421 • Fax: 305.358.2006 • vAwcRcyBlack.com EFTA00189955 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. Marie Villafana, Esq. March 5, 2010 Page 2 responsive motions that relate to the scope of waiver of liability that is memorialized in the NPA. Additionally, Mr.

9955 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. Marie Villafana, Esq. March 5, 2010 Page 2 responsive motions

the offense (e.g., 2004-5) govern the minimum statutory damage amount ($50,000 rather than $150,000) under ex post facto laws, see United States'. Scheidt, 2010 W.L. 144837 (E.D. Cal., 2010) (indicating that the statute in effect at the time of the violation governs the minimum damage remedy)? Black.

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

fer, No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) 86 United States v. Schafrick, 871 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1989) 121 United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) 105 United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015) 37, 38, 39, 40 United States v. Seabrook, 10 Cr. 87 (D

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Roy BLACK [[email protected] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:59 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Cc:

evard, Suite 1300. Miami. Florida 33131. Phone: 305-371-6421• Fax: 30S-1M-2DM • mw.RoyBlack.coni EFTA00194793 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. A. Marie Villafana, Esq. March 29, 2010 Page 2 Declaratory Judgment action asking the Court presiding over the Jane Doe 103 lawsuit to determine whether the raising

could "agree" to the occurrence of a predicate pursuant to his NPA obligations but still contest that the plaintiff was injured, see United Stated, Scheidt, supra (finding each to be a separate element) and the letter from Mr. Acosta to Mr. Starr, supra December 4, 2007 letter at p.2 which agrees that

FebruEFy 18, 2010 RE: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ms Villafana: JESSICA FONSECA-NADER KATHLEEN P. PHILLIPS AA

the offense (e.g., 2004-5) govern the minimum statutory damage amount ($50,000 rather than $150,000) under ex post facto laws, see United States'. Scheidt, 2010 W.L. 144837 (E.D. Cal., 2010) (indicating that the statute in effect at the time of the violation governs the minimum damage remedy)? Black.

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

), 2019 WL 267711 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) 121 xxi EFTA00099962 United States v. Schalk-id-, 871 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1989) 182 United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) 153, 154 United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015) 51,52,54,57 United States v. Seabrook, No. 10 Cr

Page 1 of 56 Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for VILLAFANA,MARIE 3563006 Date/Time of Request: Wednesday,

stated that he would be driving a white Blazer with big headlights. When Defendant arrived in the Sunmart parking lot in the white Blazer, Officer Schmidt arrested him. ANALYSIS The grand jury indicted Defendant with luring a minor via the intemet, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). At the time o

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

Z), 2019 WL 267711 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) 121 xxi EFTA00103020 United States v. Schafrick, 871 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1989) 182 United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) 153, 154 United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015) 51,52,54,57 United States v. Seabrook, No. 10 Cr