Epstein Secrets

/2011 Page 10 of 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on March 21, 2011. on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: A. Marie Villafafia 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.lill

ave placed victims of Epstein's sexual abuse in "the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial." Declaration of Marie Villafana, July 9, 2008 (doc. #14) at 3-4. The affidavit also goes on to say that "these provisions were discussed," id. at 4, apparently referring to this

e of the unfounded allegations made against AUSA Villafana by Epstcin's counsel during the "higher level re

nts and transcripts here could easily kill many reputations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [Press-Enterprise Co.l Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant scaling, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steinge

/2011 Page 10 of 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on March 21, 2011, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: A. Marie Villafafla 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

office file a corrected declaration and accompanying explanation. The first statement is found at page 3 to 4 of the July 9th, 2008 declaration of Marie Villafafia. There a provision in a plea agreement with Mr. Jeffrey Epstein is recounted. As we understand the Government's current position in this case, it is

n been convicted at trial." Declaration of Marie Villafana, July 9, 2008 (doe. #14) at 3-4. The affidavit

nts and transcripts here could easily kill many reputations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [Ness-Enterprise Co.'. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Swinger

13) (citing Declaration of Asst. U.S. 5 EFTA00230177 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 6 of 10 Attorney Marie Villafafia). These same subjects were also discussed at length at the Court's July 11, 2008, hearing on the matter. See, e.g., Tr. July 11, 2008, at 3-4, 18-1

n been convicted at trial." Declaration of Marie Villafana, July 9, 2008 (doe. #14) at 3-4. The affidavit

ts and transcripts here could easily kill many reputations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [Ness-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Swinger

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Vi°Mena. Ann Mane C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday. July 31, 2007 1:37 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Menchel, Matthew (US

isconduct, the doctrine of fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations. Meehan, 870 A.2d at 921- 22; Base!ice, 879 A2d at 278-79. The Superior Court on both occasions rejected EFTA00226245 110E LIBEItATORE Cue as drill F. upp.2d 742 (7.1.1).Pa. 2007) against Liberatore, the Diocese, Sacred

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

s of Gideon Richter, Ltd., 274 A.D.2d 1, 711 N.Y.S.2d 419 (1st Dep't 2000) oo. eeeeseseeseeseeeeeseeeteeseeeseeseeeees 13, 15 Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982)... eeeceesescesseseeseeseeseescscesceseescesceesseeseecseeseseeseeseeaeaseeaeeacseeseesseateaseeeases 13, 14 In re Application

phasis added). Courts have held that Brady obligations extend only to prosecutors, because the Supreme Court has not imposed this duty on others. See Villasana v. Wilhoit, 368 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2004). w 4 See Brady, 373 U.S. at 88. w > 162 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 1998). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_01

government has no obligation to obtain for a defendant records that it does not already have in its possession or control"); State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 836 P.2d 445, 452 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992) ("Brady emphasizes suppression of evidence by the prosecution, but does not require the victim to cooperate