Epstein Secrets

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Sloman. Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 5:26 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Acosta, Alex (U

Information 9/18/2007 Garcia, Villafaiia Lourie Email stating new terms that Louric negotiated with Lefkowitz 9/19/2007 A. Laurie, R. Garcia, K. A. Marie Villafana Email re negotiating strategy with attached correspondence l6 9/19/2007 A. A. Marie Villafaiia A. Laurie Email re Epstein with internal U.S.

urt re subpoena to NES, LLC and Jute 26, 2007 meeting 54 5/21/2007 Email regarding guidance on grand jury presentation 55 12/3/2007 Entails from Marie VillafaLfia to Alex Acosta regarding research on proposed trust fund. 56 3/22/2007 Entails between Marie Villafafia and IRS supervisor regarding money launde

2d 1181, 711 So.2d 1290) 12/14/2007 Draft letter to Krischer from Acosta regarding Epstein filing as sex offender 69 12/14/2007 Acosta; Sloman Villafan-a Email regarding Fl. Stat. 796.03 (procuring minors for prostitution) and 18 U.S.C. 2255 74 12/17/2007 Acosta Lefkowitz Email responding to i

g correspondence from Sanchez regarding Special Master Process 10/9/2007 illy Ann LS anchez Villafafia Email - 1 page with two page letter from Villafaha to Sanchez attached Privileged Confidential Page 21 of 51 Contains 6(e) Material EFTA00225448 EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION TIMELINE Date To From R

his case. Gerald Lefcourt has represented Martha Stewart — the last thing he would do is bring his client

nd, in our opinion, showed a lack of understanding of sex offenders generally and a lack of knowledge of this case. Gerald Lefcourt has represented Martha Stewart — the last thing he would do is bring his client in to face a possible "perjury trap." In the middle of this period, which started in November 2006

32211 Email: [email protected] PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul G. Cassell Email: PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Ann Marie C. Villafana United States Attorney's Office 500 South Australian Ave Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561—820-8711 Fax: 820-8777 Email: mm,marie.c.vill

red: 09/25/2008) 10/08/2008 2s RESPONSE in Opposition rela MOTION to Unseal Document Non—Prosecution Agreement filed by United States of America. (Villafana, Ann Marie) (Entered: 10/08/2008) 10/16/2008 11 RESPONSE/REPLY toj2 Response in Opposition to Motion to Unseal Non—Prosecution Agreement filed by

/09/2008 1.4 UNSEALED DECLARATION signed by : A. Marie Villafana. re1.1 Response to Victim's Emergency Petition b

Federal offense." Second, the court must identify the direct and proximate effects of that behavior on parties other than the United States. In re Stewart, 552 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2008). If the criminal behavior causes a party direct and proximate harmful effect, the party is considered a victim under

riminal defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz), and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafana and others. The plea discussions generally began from the premise that Epstein would plead guilty to at least one federal felony offense surrounding

11 Page 42 of 42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on March 21, 2011, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: A. Marie Villafafta Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Fax: (561) 820-8777 E-mail: ann.marie,c,vill

represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafana and others. The plea discussions generally began

and be heard during some phases of the prosecution of the person charged with the crime." Id. at 1285-86 (footnote omitted and emphasis added). In Stewart, the issue was whether individuals who had purchased houses from various real estate developers were victims under the CVRA, when the purchasers wer

(D.E. 291-1), is the notification letter from the United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida, signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafana, on behalf of United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. D.E. 291-1 at 17-20. Jane Doe No. 3 even goes so far as to state that, "Whig kind of writt

rida, signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafana, on behalf of United States Attorney R. Alexander

litigation by requiring a determination of whether or not she is, in fact, a "victim" of a federal offense committed by Jeffrey Epstein. Cf. In it Stewart, 552 F.3d 1285, 1288-89 (11'" Cir. 2008) (on mandamus review, determining that petitioners were "crime victims" of charged offense as defined under

nited States of America, Respondent: Ann Marie C. Villafana, LEAD ATTORNEY, United States Attorney's Office,

ay C. Howell, PRO HAC VICE, Jay Howell & Associates PA, Jacksonville, FL; Paul G. Cassell, PRO HAC VICE. For United States of America, Respondent: Ann Marie C. Villafana, LEAD ATTORNEY, United States Attorney's Office, West Palm Beach. FL; Dexter Lee, LEAD ATTORNEY, United States Attorney's Office, Miami, FL. For R

DISSOLUTION Mortgage Information Title Company: STEWART TITLE Motor Vehicle Registrations - 58 records f

Florida accepted the case for prosecution and assigned specific federal prosecutors to handle the case. The lead Assistant U.S. Attorney ("AUSA"), A. Marie Villafaita, sent a letter to the identified victims, informing each victim that she was protected by, and had rights under, the CVRA. For example, in 2006, t

d, Epstein's attorney Jay Lefkowitz e-mailed AUSA Villafana, requesting: "Marie - Please do whatever you can

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (motions to vacate or correct sentences); 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus proceedings are initiated as a new lawsuit); see also In re Stewart, 552 F.3d 1285, 1288 (11th Cir. 2008) ("The mandamus proceeding before us is a free standing cause of action, brought by persons claiming to be CVR

es, the Office had approximately 20 Assistant U.S. Attorneys assigned to the West Palm Beach location. The prosecutor assigned to the Epstein case, Ann Marie Villafana, end I were assigned to different sections within the Office. We reported to different supervisors. 11. I did not participate in any way in the Of

osecutor assigned to the Epstein case, Ann Marie Villafana, end I were assigned to different sections withi

and be heard during some phases of the prosecution of the person charged with the crime." Id. at 1285-86 (footnote omitted and emphasis added). In Stewart, the issue was whether individuals who had purchased houses from various real estate developers were victims under the CVRA, when the purchasers wer

ct, such a motion would smack of Government sandbagging of the victims. We presume that you and others in your office (i.e., Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafafta) have been well aware of Jane Doe #1's and Jane Doe #2's efforts that past year-and-a- half to obtain information from Epstein relevant to their CVRA

ntry at all levels of the federal courts, and this approach is the normal one for these courts (including courts of this Circuit). See, e.g., In re Stewart (I Ph Cir. 2008) (CVRA enforcement action commenced by motion); In re Antrobus (10th Circuit 2008) (same); In re Dean (5th Cir. 2008) (same). Indeed

ing the time period where Jane Doe 2 had obtained counsel paid for by Epstein. (Jane Doe 2 Decl. ¶¶ 5-7.) Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") A. Marie Villafafia ("line prosecutor" "Villafaiia") testified that both Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 received letters describing their rights under the CVRA. Although Ja

.S.C. § 3771(e) (the CVRA defines a victim as "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense"); In re Stewart, 552 F.3d 1285, 1288 (1 Cir. 2008) ("to determine a crime victim, then, first, we identify the behavior constituting 'commission of a Federal offen

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 17, 2007, a true and correct copy of the forging motion was furnished by facsimile (561) 802-1787, and U.S. mail to: Maria Villifana, Esq., U.S. Attorney's Office, 500 uth Australian Avenue, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401. By: ROY BLACK, ESQ: Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein

home and/or belonged to him, which would, in turn, at a minimum, implicitly authenticate the contents of the materials. See, e.g., United States v. Stewart, 2003 WL 23024461 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. December 29, 2003) (act of production privileged where government's claimed relevance for requiring the defendant