Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villatana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 3:14 PM To: Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein Hi Matt -- My trial is over, so I now have to time to focus back on this case and our e-mail exchange. There are several points in your e-mail that I would like to address, and I also would like to address where we are in the case. First, I wanted to address the comment about jumping the chain of command. After that concern was brought to my attention several months ago, I have tried very hard to be cognizant of the chain of command, and, as was evident at the meeting with Epstein's attorneys, Andy and I have discussed the case extensively. My original e-mail asking for everyone's input was addressed to Andy, you, and Jeff, and Karen Atkinson was cc'd. (Karen and I also have discussed the case in great detail.) The response to your e-mail was addressed only to you because i thought you would want to discuss privately our disagreement. It was addressed to Jeff as well because you said that you had Jeff's Blackberry and it was a holiday when you would be out of the office. If there is a particular instance of violating the chain of command that you would like to discuss, I would be happy to discuss it with you. Second, the reason why I sent the original e-mail to everyone was to see if anyone had any objections to the proposed language. I waited several days to send out the e-mail to Lilly to get everyone's response. In your response, you did not raise any concerns, nor did anyone else. Given your indication that the U.S. Attorney would be satisfied with an agreement involving no federal prosecution, I certainly didn't think that an agreement involving some federal component would be objectionable. Andy, Jeff, you, and I all have discussed the greater flexibility of a pre-indictment plea. The statement that I have not respected Alex's position regarding the prosecution of the case demonstrates why you hear the frustration in the tone of my e-mail. For two and a half months I have been asking about what that position is. I have asked for direction on whether to revise the indictment, whether there are other issues that Alex wants addressed prior to deciding, whether there is additional investigation that needs to be done, etc. None of that direction has been forthcoming, so I am left with a grand jury, victims, and agents all demanding to know why we aren't presenting an indictment. Perhaps that lack of direction is through no fault of yours, but I have been dealing with a black box, so I do not know to whom I should address my frustration. My recollection of the original meeting with Alex and Jeff is quite different than your summary. In that meeting, I summarized the case and the State Attorney's Office's handling of it. I acknowledged that we needed to do work to collect the evidence establishing a federal nexus, and I noted the time and money that would be required for an investigation. I said that I was willing to invest that time and the FBI was willing to invest the money, but I didn't want to get to the end and then have the Office be intimidated by the high-powered lawyers. I was assured that that 60 EFTA00191163

would not happen. Now I feel like there is a glass ceiling that prevents me from moving forward while evidence suggests that Epstein is continuing to engage in this criminal behavior. Additionally, the FBI has identified two more victims. If the case is not going to go forward, I think it is unfair to give hope to more girls. As far as promising the FBI that an indictment was a foregone conclusion, I don't know of any cases in the Office where an investigation has been opened with the plan NOT to indict. And I have never presented an indictment package that has resulted in a declination. I didn't treat this case any differently. I worked with the agents to gather the evidence, and I prepared an indictment package that I believe establishes probable cause that a series of crimes have been committed. More importantly, I believe there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Epstein's criminal culpability. Lastly, I was not trying to "dictate" a meeting with the U.S. Attorney or anyone else. I stated that I "would like" to schedule a meeting, asking to have the same courtesy that was extended to the defense attorneys extended to the FBI and an Assistant in the Office. With respect to your questions regarding my judgment, I will simply say that disagreements about strategy and raising concerns about the forgotten voices of the victims in this case should not be classified as a lapse in judgment. This Office should seek to foster spirited debate about the law and the use of prosecutorial discretion, and I think that those debates do occur with other AUSAs. I know of past instances where disagreements about the application of the law to different defendants and defense attorneys has resulted in a call for the resignation of the AUSA who dared to challenge the Executive Office's conclusions. I found that very disheartening and hoped that this Administration would be different. However, my first and only concern in this case (and my other child exploitation cases) is the victims. If our personality differences threaten their access to justice, then please put someone on the case whom you trust more, and who will also protect their rights. In the meantime, I will be meeting with the agents on Monday to begin preparing a revised indictment package containing your suggestions on the indictment and responding to the issues raised by Epstein's attorneys. Andy and I have discussed the most recent letter and noted the disingenuousness of their arguments. For example, they would like to use a linguist to establish the plain meaning of "using" in connection with "knowingly persuading," but they want us to disregard the plain meaning of "mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce" and instead treat that language as though it says only "the internet." They have simply ignored binding precedent from the Eleventh Circuit and the Supreme Court in making their arguments about the Commerce Clause and the interpretation of 2242(b). If there are any specific issues that you or the U.S. Attorney would like to see addressed, please let me know. Again, this e-mail has been addressed only to you, but if you would like to share it with anyone else in Miami or here, please feel free. I hope that you have a nice weekend. 61 EFTA00191164