Epstein Secrets

meet with her but she said that she believed such a meeting would be premature. In December, Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt again contacted AUSA Villafafia to set a meeting. In advance of such a meeting, AUSA Villafafia requested documents but that request was refused. Ms. Sanchez then contacted AUSA L

policy. By May 2007, AUSA Villafafia began seeking approval from her supervisors to indict Epstein. Her immediate supervisor was Andrew Lourie. Mr. Lourie had served as the Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ as well as in several supervisory positions in the SDFL. By mid-2006, he had returne

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 Villafafia began seeking approval from her supervisors to indict Epstein. Her immediate supervisor was Andrew Lourie. Mr. Lourie had served as the Chief of the

policy. By May 2007, AUSA Villafafia began seeking approval from her supervisors to indict Epstein. Her immediate supervisor was Andrew Lourie. Mr. Lourie had served as the Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ as well as in several supervisory positions in the SDFL. By mid- 2006, he had returne

The Section 2255 provision issue was first discussed at a July 31, 2007, meeting between FAU SA , Criminal Chief_, West Palm Beach Chief Lourie, AUSA Villafafia, and two FBI agents who met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Lilly Ann Sanchez. On that date, the prosecutors presented a written, four-bullet-

oncerns. The Section 2255 provision issue was first discussed at a July 31, 2007, meeting between FAU SA , Criminal Chief_, West Palm Beach Chief Lourie, AUSA Villafafia, and two FBI agents who met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Lilly Ann Sanchez. On that date, the prosecutors presented a writ

es Attorney A. Marie Villafafia to the letter of Jeffrey R. Ragsdale, dated April 2, 2019, regarding the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. AUSA Villafafia separately has sent you encrypted disks containing the exhibits referenced in her written response, and has emailed other exhibits that were not in

so the plea agreement would have had to be a binding plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), which is what I drafted. I was informed by Mr. Lourie that USA Acosta did not want to do a (c)(1)(C) plea, so I had to find charges that would result in a two-year statutory maximum. This resulted in m