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

the relevant federal statutes unambiguously indicate that these statutes were designed to address problems of a national and international Justice Stevens, in his concurring opinion, also acknowled d the rule of lenity, calling the plurality opinion's discussion of that rule "surely persuasive." United

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

is a red herring. Also, the canon of constitutional avoidance does not apply here because the CVRA is plain and unambiguous. See United States v. Stevens 559 U.S. 460, 481, 130 S. Ct 1577, 1591-92, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) (providing that courts cannot "rely upon the canon of construction that 'ambigu

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

opinion invokes the canon of constitutional avoidance, it does not apply here because there is no ambiguity in the CVRA text. See United States v. Stevens. 559 U.S. 460, 481, 130 S. Ct. 1577. 1591-92. 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) (providing that courts cannot 'rely upon the canon of construction that 'ambig

f the relevant federal statutes unambiguously indicate that these statutes were designed to address problems of a national and international Justice Stevens, in his concurring opinion, also acknowledged the rule of lenity, calling the plurality opinion’s discussion of that rule “surely persuasive.” United

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.”

-mail: Dexter. [email protected] E-mail: ann.marie.c.villafana@usdoj.gov and Attorneys for the Government Paul G

d liberty...” Krauser v. Evolution Holdings, Inc., 975 F.Supp. 2d 1247, 1260 (S.D. Fla. 2013); quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 24 n. 5 (1998) (Stevens, J., dissenting). HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010738 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 5 of 19 In