Epstein Secrets

effrey Epstein the sex offender, rather than the prosecutors who work for you. Today we had a telephone conference call with two of your attorneys, Dexter Lee and Marie Villafana, in which they told us that we would not be receiving any cooperation from your Office on our CVRA case and that, in short, we

ld, withhold from the victims information in your Office's possession that would support their claims under the CVRA. After receiving approval from Dexter and Marie, we wanted to write to you personally in one last effort to see if we can narrow our differences on these two issues and avoid a disappoin

and was described as short wit ong hair, freckles and light colored eyes. LNU attende Middle School. LNU went to Epstein's residence prior to Rivera's first contact with him. During one of their conversations, Epstein asked "Do you know that girl that brought?" At the conclusion of the inter

:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 15 of 20 Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dexter A. Lee Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0936693 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Tel: Emt Eduardo I. Sanchez Assistant United

ugh the review of potential or abstract disputes,' Digital Props., Inc. v. City of Plantation, 121 F.3d 586, 589 (11th Cir.1997)." United States v. Rivera, 613 F.3d 1046, 1050 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001) ("The ripeness doctrine prevent[s] the courts

v-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 15 of 20 Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Dexter A. Lee Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0936693 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Tel: (305) 961-9320; Fax: (305) 530-7139 Email

h the review of potential or abstract disputes,' Digital Props., Inc. v. City of Plantation, 121 F.3d 586, 589 (I I th Cir.1997)." United States v. Rivera, 613 F.3d 1046, 1050 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1278 (I I th Cir. 2001) ("The ripeness doctrine prevent[s] the cour

108041tlitlitaiEtt DleanEErritgrEd OilieftegelakckeP2t7/69/2013.5 Page 15 of 20 Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dexter A. Lee Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0936693 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami. Florida 33132 Tel: (305) 961-9320; Fax: (305) 530-7139 Email

ugh the review of potential or abstract disputes,' Digital Props., Inc. v. City of Plantation, 121 F.3d 586, 589 (11th Cir.1997)." United States v. Rivera, 613 F.3d 1046, 1050 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001) ("The ripeness doctrine prevent[s] the courts

ugh the review of potential or abstract disputes,' Digital Props., Inc. v. City of Plantation, 121 F.3d 586, 589 (11th Cir.1997)." United States v. Rivera, 613 F.3d 1046, 1050 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001) ("The ripeness doctrine prevent[s] the courts

v-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 15 of 20 Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Dexter A. Lee Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0936693 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Tel: (305) 961-9320; Fax: (305) 530-7139 Email