Epstein Secrets

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

on to Motions of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 162); Notice of Supplemental Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Leticowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 4 EFTA001778

, Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone: 305.371.6421 • Fax: 305-358-2006 • www.RoyBlaciccom EFTA00213246 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. A. Marie Villafana, Esq. March 29, 2010 Page 2 Declaratory Judgment action asking the Court presiding over the Jane Doe 103 lawsuit to determine whether the raising

6 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. A. Marie Villafana, Esq. March 29, 2010 Page 2 Declaratory Judgme

e, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Roy BLACK [[email protected] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:59 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Cc:

evard, Suite 1300. Miami. Florida 33131. Phone: 305-371-6421• Fax: 30S-1M-2DM • mw.RoyBlack.coni EFTA00194793 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. A. Marie Villafana, Esq. March 29, 2010 Page 2 Declaratory Judgment action asking the Court presiding over the Jane Doe 103 lawsuit to determine whether the raising

te, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed

E OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been provided by United States mail and via facsimile to: ANN MARIE C. VILLAFANA, AUSA, United States Attorney's Office, 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, this ab day of July, 2008. Brad Ed

ed States mail and via facsimile to: ANN MARIE C. VILLAFANA, AUSA, United States Attorney's Office, 500 Sout

eeding which itself is protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court

y Southern District of Florida 500 E. Broward Blvd, 7th Floor Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33394 Re: B.B. JEFFREY EPSTEIN OUR FILE NO.: 080303 Dear Ms. Villafana: As you are aware, this firm represents Plaintiff, Jane Doe, a/k/a/ B.B. in the civil litigation against Jeffrey Epstein styled B.B. I Jeffrey Epst

tatute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landaraf the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the e

te, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos supra, at 2025: 3 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed

PBPD brought the case to the FBI’s attention because of a concern that the State Attorney’s Office had succumbed to “pressure” from defense counsel. Villafana informed both Acosta and Sloman of this when she met with them at the start of the federal investigation. Acosta confirmed that he was aware that the

y constitutional free speech principles, as a testifying grand jury witness is free to disclose her grand jury testimony . In I Butterworth v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court, weighing the competing interests of grand jury secrecy and the First Amendment, held unconstitutional Section 905;.27’s prohibition on a witness rev

and the United States Prosecutors in a joint attempt to minimize Epstein's civil exposure. For example, on October 3, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafafia sent an email (attached hereto as Exhibit "D") to Jay Lefkowitz, counsel for Epstein, with attached proposed letter to special master regarding hand

sponsibilities, PAUL G. CASSELL clerked first for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1984-1985) and then from 1985 to 1986 clerked for the United States Supreme Court before serving as an Associate Deputy Attorney EFTA00188845 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM L,,,,ument 291-10 Entered on FLSD 01/21/2015 Page 3 of 7 Edwa

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.”

tion in favor of the state. Although Mr. Epstein and the State Attorney’s Office had already reached a plea agreement, in August 2007, Mr. Sloman and AUSA Marie Villafana warned that they intended to prosecute Epstein federally unless his counsel (i.e., not the U.S. Attorney’s Office) sought more stringent conditions t

interests of the victim. 774 Having seen the Advisory Committee proposal and accompanying note, I am concerned that the limits on subpoenas found in the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Nixon 734 might be vitiated by a broad rule. To ensure courts consistently apply Nixon's substantive and procedural stan

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