Epstein Secrets

attorneys. Supplemental Declaration of A. Marie Villafana, Dec. 22, 2008, doe. #35 at 2-3. 49. On July 11,

ein's attorneys. Supplemental Declaration of A. Marie Villafana, Dec. 22, 2008, doe. #35 at 2-3. 49. On July 11,

tter for some time. Indeed, the Government sent notice to Petitioner more than a year ago that 'your case is under investigation?' See Letter from A. Marie Villafatia to C.W. at 2 (June 7, 2007) (attached to Governmen'.'s Response) (emphasis added). The notice went on to tell Petitioner that "as a victim and/or w

ld apply. Since the earliest days of our nation, it has been settled law that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . . . .." Marbury-v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, "[i]f the right is created by a federal statute, the federal courts have

attorneys. Supplemental Declaration of A. Marie Villafana, Dec. 22, 2008, doc. #35 at 2-3. 49. On July II,

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 Villafafia and others. The plea discussions generally began from the premise that Epstein would plead guilty to at least one federal felony offense surrounding

ein's attorneys. Supplemental Declaration of A. Marie Villafana, Dec. 22, 2008, doc. #35 at 2-3. 49. On July II,

ld apply. Since the earliest days of our nation, it has been settled law that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . . . .." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, "[l]t' the right is created by a federal statute, the federal courts hav

Attorney ("AUSA") assigned to the case, A. Marie Villafana, sent a letter telling the victim that she was p

the two-year investigation, once a victim of Epstein's sexual abuse was identified, the lead Assistant U.S. Attorney ("AUSA") assigned to the case, A. Marie Villafana, sent a letter telling the victim that she was protected by the CVRA and explaining her statutory rights under the CVRA. For example, in 2006 and

opriate equitable remedy"). Furthermore, it has long been an "indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137, 163, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) (quoting 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries *23). For that reason, "[w]here legal rights ha

puty Chief, Northern Region), and AUSA Anna Marie Villafana. Mr. Epstein retained counsel with expertise in

Jeffrey Sloman (First Assistant U.S. Attorney), Matthew Menchel (Chief, Criminal Division), Andrew Lourie (Deputy Chief, Northern Region), and AUSA Anna Marie Villafana. Mr. Epstein retained counsel with expertise in federal law and federal jurisdiction, including a former federal appellate judge, a former United S

of relief against Mr. Epstein.3 III. THE CVRA ITSELF DOES NOT AUTHORIZE IMPOSITION OF THE EPSTEIN REMEDIES Citing a line of cases beginning with Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Petitioners contend that the CVRA authorizes "the invalidation of an illegal non- prosecution agreement so that t

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

federal investigative agency will lack any place to assert her right to fair treatment - in contravention of a teaching that traces back at least to Marbury v. Madison that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy." >*4 The Advisory Committee, however, seems to think that this is not a