Epstein Secrets

lved and depended upon his plane travel. Although Judge Marra dismissed the RICO claim at some point in the fe

itigation. The RICO claim alleged that Epstein ran an expansive criminal enterprise that involved and depended upon his plane travel. Although Judge Marra dismissed the RICO claim at some point in the federal litigation, the legal team representing Edwards' clients intended to pursue an appeal of that

t the United States Attorney's Office prepared negotiated plea agreements containing these charges. For example, in a September 18, 2007, email from AUSA Villafaila to Lefkowitz (attached hereto as Exhibit "H"), she attached the proposed plea agreement describing Epstein's witness tampering as follows: "UNITED

alleged perpetrator. Alleged perpetrator intervened. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM, Kenneth A. Marra, Senior District Judge, 359 F.Supp.3d 1201, determined that government had violated CVRA, but after alleged perpetrator's death, alleged victim's r

ct of Florida, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM, Kenneth A. Marra, Senior District Judge, 359 F.Supp.3d 1201, dete

e a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." Further, on January 31, 2008, Wild met with AUSA Villafaila, FBI agents, and another federal prosecutor, provided additional details of Epstein's sexual abuse of her, and expressed her hope that Epstein woul

of their intent to use the correspondence. The notice specifically covered this CVRA action: [A]s you know, there is currently pending before Judge Marra a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, in which two victims of sexual assault by [you] allege they were deprive

[A]s you know, there is currently pending before Judge Marra a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act

llowed those other victims to participate while maintaining some semblance of privacy. Petitioners also reiterate baseless allegations made against AUSA Villafaila regarding the choice of the attorney-representative for the victims, despite knowing that: (1) the issue of the attorney-representative arose after

ecutors to turn over documents about plea discussions with Epstein. The decision also lifted an appellate stay on the ruling by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra in West Palm Beach to allow the release of documents to the women, identified in court papers only as Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. The women

erly Martin and U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell of Orlando, sitting by designation. The U.S. attorneys office in Miami argued before Marra that the victims did not need to be notified of the agreement because the women's liberty was not at stake. It also took the position that the Crim

ie Villafana secured pro bono counsel to represent Jane Doe #1. Pro bono counsel was able to assist Jane Doe #1 in avoiding the improper deposition. AUSA Villafaila secured pro bono counsel by contacting Meg Garvin, Esq. of the the National Crime Victims' Law Center in Portland, Oregon, which is based in the Le

: I write to confirm my conversation with Mr. Lefkowitz of June 12, 2009. As I mentioned during that conversation and during the hearing with Judge Marra, the U.S. Attorney's Office is not a party to any of the civil suits against Mr. Epstein pending in the U.S. District Court or any state court and

ing that conversation and during the hearing with Judge Marra, the U.S. Attorney's Office is not a party to an

. Next, you assert that our letter miscb aractetizes Mr. Epstein's obligation to pay damages to the victims. To avoid that suggestion, I have asked AUSA Villafaila to simply quote the terms of the Agreement directly into the Notification Letter. We also have no objection to referring to Mr. Epstein as a "sexua

ite to rescission is placing the other party in status quo"); Renfrow v. First Mortg. America, Inc., 2011 WL 2416247, *3 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2011) (Marra, J.) ("restoring the parties to the status quo ante is an element of a rescission claim"); see also, e.g., Blinco, 400 F.3d at 1312; AVVA-BC, 25 So.

2005) (recognizing that the CVRA does not require notice of public court proceedings based on violations of state criminal law), and, in any event, AUSA Villafaila provided Petitioners with pre-hearing notice of those state proceeding — in which Epstein pled guilty to state criminal charges — upon the governme

nior, Robert (USAFLS) please review 08-80736-CV-MARRA se EXHIBIT B-128 P-014955 EFTA00225342 U.S.

e S. Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division's Appellate Section and the Office of Enforcement Operations regarding the petit policy. By May 2007, AUSA Villafaila began seeking approval from her supervisors to indict Epstein. Her immediate supervisor was Andrew Lourie. Mr. Lourie had served as the Chief of the

Epstein's non-prosecution agreement 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000770 EFTA00230594 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Do

tters in approximately June 2007 [Jane Doe #1] and August 2006 [Jane Doe #2) wherein they were advised of this right and given the phone numbers of AUSA Villafaila, FBI Special Agent Kuyrkendall, and the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime. The letters specifically advised that if the Petitioners