Epstein Secrets

and growing number of identified victims and sentencing guidelines if found guilty of committing a sex- trafficking offense against just one victim. AUSA Villafafia would not provide many answers or comments to any of my direct questions and, in fact, expressed that while she wished she could answer my question

riminal case against Jeffrey Epstein and she wanted my assistance in getting some answers. 11. In mid-June 2008, I had several telephone calls with AUSA Villafafia. In her affidavit, Villafafia only recounts certain fragments of these calls. (See DE 403-19, para. 37-38). However, to the extent the substance o

ng cases and concluding "the relevant case law unanimously agrees that the CVRA extends rights to crime victims before charges have been filed"). As the Eleventh Circuit has explained, "Congress is presumed to know the federal courts' interpretation of a statute that it intends to amend," and "[w]here there is no in

solved by the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in September 2007. 88. In mid-June 2008, I contacted AUSA Villafafia to inform her that I represented Jane Doe No. 1 and, later, Jane Doe No. 2. I asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committ

ified victims in connection with the criminal investigation. Pro bono counsel was able to assist Jane Doe No. I in avoiding the improper deposition. AUSA Villafafia 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

ts production in this case. With regard to item (1) — correspondence with Epstein, the Government withheld the correspondence pending a ruling from the Eleventh Circuit on Epstein's motion to stay production of these materials. With regard to the other items, the Government produced 14,825 pages of documents to the

plained that the Government was incentivizing the victims to overstate their involvement with Epstein in order to increase their damage claims. Id. AUSA Villafafia and the FBI agents concluded that informing additional victims could compromise both the witnesses' credibility and the agents' credibility at a la

r protections. I. Work-Product Protection, as Well as Attorney-Client Privilege, Can Be Explicitly or Impliedly Waived. Case law from this Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court all make clear that work product protection can be waived — indeed, such protection can be waived "impliedly." A very thorou

efkowitz e-mailed AUSA Villafana, requesting: "Marie - Please do whatever you can to keep this [Agreement] from becoming public." (emphasis added). AUSA Villafafia assured Lefkowitz that the Agreement would be kept confidential. 7 For example, in a December 6, 2007 letter, AUSA Villafana informed Lefkowitz tha

ssent misses the point: we are not only deciding Ms. Wild's case today. The majority's opinion will set precedent for how CVRA suits will proceed in the Eleventh Circuit. The mere fact that an Assistant United States Attorney in this case recognized certain individuals as victims says nothing about how prosecutors a

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 Villafafia, FBI Special Agent Kuyrkendall, and the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime. The letters specifically advised that if the Petitioners

ormally lodged against an accused, in determining whether an individual was covered by the CVRA. In In Re Stewart, 552 F.3d 1285 (I 1ih Cir. 2008), the Eleventh Circuit observed, in the opening "The Justice for All Act included the CVRA and several other criminal laws. 24 EFTA00078858 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docu