Epstein Secrets

involvement in this matter, and return responsibility for this case to the State of Florida. 17 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001686 EFTA00209865 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Jay Lefkowitz [[email protected]] Sent: y, September 27, 2007 2:53 PM To: , Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject:

500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401- 5933. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: A. MARIE VILLAFASIA Assistant United States Attorney Enclosures cc: Special Agent E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, FBI 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001701 EFTA00209880 Atter

here is no support for CEOS's view that the courts or a jury should ultimately decide whether a "novel" construction of the law is correct. Instead, the Executive Branch itself has a non-delegable obligation not to exceed its authority; the power of other branches to check or remedy such usurpation does not legitimi

(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

rri Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193, 202-03 (1979). The Constitution places the power to prosecute crimes in the hands of disinterested public officials in the Executive Branch. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 3 (duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"); United States'. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 467 (1996) ("powe

ess as a witness for the prosecution of Epstein. Villafana Decl, 1 14. Her exculpatory statements regarding

nt United States Attorney 99 ■. 4th Street, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33132 Tel: (305) 961-9320; Fax: (305) 530-7139 E-mail: [email protected] A. Marie Villafafia Assistant United States Attorney 500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Tel: (561) 820-8711; Fax: (561) 820-8777 E-m

er the agreement. The Circuit Court, just like the federal court, had no authority to judicially review the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the Executive Branch of the federal government. The Circuit Court's inquiry on June 30, 2008 was limited to the pleas of guilty made by Epstein, and whether they 12 EF

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 4:07 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Cc: Sloman, Jeff (

ergency.pdf >> <<File: DE1_080707_Petition.pdf>> A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave,

notify her of a public hearing, etc. I do not believe the statute allows the victim to interfere with the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the Executive Branch. Dexter From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:43 PM To: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) Cc: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Acosta, A

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

orney General were consulted, received legal submissions, and fully approved the exercise of discretion by the heads of the USAO-SDFL. In the end, the Executive Branch exercised, in good faith, the unreviewable prosecutorial discretion afforded to it by Article II of the Constitution, as even recognized by Congres

in order to convict Mr. Epstein. Indeed, just this week (and after two years of federal involvement in this matter), Assistant United States Attorney Villafana re-initiated the federal grand jury investigation—in direct contravention of the parties’ Non Prosecution Agreement—and issued yet another subpoena s

d not be countenanced. That is all the more true under the circumstances where the duly appointed U.S. Attorney opined that, in effect, the “unitary” Executive Branch was driving this prosecution. We now know that is not so. What I respectfully request, and what I hope you will provide, is a truly “de novo” review

ess as a witness for the prosecution of Epstein. Villafana Decl, 1 14. Her exculpatory statements regarding

er the agreement. The Circuit Court, just like the federal court, had no authority to judicially review the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the Executive Branch of the federal government. The Circuit Court's inquiry on June 30, 2008 was limited to the pleas of guilty made by Epstein, and whether they 12 EF

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 4:14 PM To: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) Cc: Sloman, Jeff (

notify her of a public hearing, etc. I do not believe the statute allows the victim to interfere with the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the Executive Branch. Dexter From: \defend, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:43 PM To: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) Cc: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Acosta, Ale

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

predators accountable. Boonma maintains that dismissing this case would clearly disregard United States public policy expressed by Congress and the Executive Branch. •10 Although the court recognizes that Congressional enactments and Administration policy evidence the intent to combat sex crimes again

There is no support for CEOS’s view that the courts or a jury should ultimately decide whether a “novel” construction of the law is correct. Instead, the Executive Branch itself has a non-delegable obligation not to exceed its authority; the power of other branches to check or remedy such usurpation does not legitimize

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.”