Epstein Secrets

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

Ct. 2749, 2765, 165 L.Ed.2d 723 (2006); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretati

ncluded in other provisions of the same statute."C a Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557,578, 126 S. Ct. 2749, 2765, 165 L.Ed.2d 723 (2006); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 170 (2012) ("[W]here a document has used one term *1237 in one place, and a materi

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

as importantly, what it didn't write"); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Gamer, Reading Law: The Interpretatio

ny field of statutory interpretation, it is our duty to respect not only what Congress wrote but, as importantly, what it didn't write"); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Gamer, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 182 (2012) ("The familiar `easy-to-say-so-if-that-is-what-was-meant' rule of statuto

violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b) and 2423(b). Since the limited review conducted by CEOS, two Supreme Court decisions—one authored by Justice Scalia and the other by Justice Thomas—have revitalized the bedrock principles that federal criminal statutes must be narrowly construed, that they may not

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.”

protected rights under the Act even before charges are filed. [*73] C. COURTS RECOGNIZE THAT CRIME VICTIMS HAVE CVRA RIGHTS BEFORE CHARGING 4 See Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 56 (2012). % 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) (2012) (enumerating eight rights); id. § 3771(c)(

(1), (5), (8), (c)(1) (2012). 213 See 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c)(2) (2006). 214 See Attorney General Guidelines, supra note 52, at 41-42. 215 Letter from A. Marie Villafana, Assistant U.S. Att'y, to Jane Doe #1 (June 7, 2007), reprinted in Jane Doe Motion, supra note 40, at ex. C. 216 Td, 217 Td, 218 See Victims' Right

upra note 52, at 41-42. 215 Letter from A. Marie Villafana, Assistant U.S. Att'y, to Jane Doe #1 (June 7, 20

acts, “they would have taken steps to object” to the plea agreement, and that they believed criminal prosecution to be “extremely important”). 4 See ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING Law: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 56 (2012). °° 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) (2012) (enumerating eight rights), id. § 3771(c)

in state criminal justice systems. Nearly two-thirds of states have adopted constitutional provisions to protect victims throughout 715 Letter from A. Marie Villafafia, Assistant U.S. Att’y, to Jane Doe #1 (June 7, 2007), reprinted in Jane Doe Motion, supra note 40, at ex. C. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014076 --- PAGE BREAK

dopted amendments to their own state constitutions, | which protect a wide range of victims’ rights. ® Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 834 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring) (internal quotations omitted). See generally Douglas E. Beloof, Paul G. Cassell & Steven J. Twist, Victims in Criminal Procedure 638

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