EFTA00191148.pdf

Case 9:08•cv-80736•KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2013 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE NI and JANE DOE #2, petitioners, FILED by D.C. vs. JUN 1 8 2013 STEVEN M LARIMORE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CLERK U S DIST. CT S 0 of FLA - W PB respondent. OMNIBUS ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the court on various motions. Upon consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: I. The petitioners' protective motion seeking recognition of the availability of various remedies attaching to the CVRA violations alleged in this proceeding [DE 128] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renew the request for any particular form of relief or remedy in connection with the court's fmal disposition of petitioners' CVRA petition on the merits. 2. The intervenors' motion to strike the petitioners' supplemental authority regarding privilege claims [DE 177] is DENIED AS MOOT. 3. The petitioners' sealed motion for the court to deny the government's motion to dismiss based on existing pleadings, or alternatively, for leave to file a sur-reply [DE 152] is DENIED AS MOOT. EFTA00191148 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2013 Page 2 of 3 3. The petitioners' motion to compel discovery from the government [DE 130] is GRANTED. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of entry of this order, the government shall: a. File answers to all outstanding requests for admissions in the open court file; b. Produce responsive documents in response to all outstanding requests for production of documents encompassing any documentary material exchanged by or between the federal government and persons or entities outside the federal government (including without limitation all correspondence generated by or between the federal government and Epstein's attorneys), and c. Produce all other responsive documents in response to all outstanding requests for production of documents. To the extent any claim of privilege is asserted in connection with the production of any documents falling within this broader category of materials only (i.e. materials other than communications generated between the federal government and outside persons or entities), the government shall further: (i) contemporaneously file and serve, in the public portion of the court file, a privilege log clearly identifying each documents by author(s), addressee(s), recipient (s), date, and general subject matter and such other identifying data as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1 (g), and (ii) contemporaneously submit all responsive documents withheld on claim ofprivilege to the court for in camera inspection by submitting the same for filing with the court under seal. As to any documents falling into this broader category ofmaterials (identified in ¶3.c.), and as to which the government has asserted claim of privilege with accompanying privilege log, petitioners shall have THIRTY (30) DAYS after service of the privilege log within which to file motion to compel contesting any asserted privilege claim, limited to SEVEN (7) PAGES in length, 2 EFTA00191149 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2013 Page 3 of 3 and the government shall thereafter have FIFTEEN OM DAYS after service of the petitioners's motion motion to file its response, if any, limited to SEVEN (7) PAGES in length. No further submissions on asserted privilege claims shall be entertained without the express invitation of the court. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 18'" day of June, 2013. Kenneth A. Marra United States District Judge cc. All counsel I o _ SEALED J0T SEALED I 3 EFTA00191150  To be Argued By: JAY P. LEFKOWITZ New York County Clerk's Index No. 30129/2010 r efu I wit *grant gratrt APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, —against— JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendant -Appellant. BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JAY P. LEFKOWITZ SANDRA LYNN MUSUMECI KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant REPRODUCED ON RECYCLED PAPER EFTA00191151 EFTA00191152 New York County Clerk's Index No. 30129/2010 ettr tin Supreme Court APPELLATE DIVISION-FIRST DEPARTMENT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, —against- JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant. APPENDIX CYRUS R. VANCE, JR. JAY P. LEFKOWITZ NE%V YORK COUNTY Mrnuer SANDRA LYNN MUSUMECI ATTORNEY'S OFFICE KIRKLAND & ELLis LLP One Hogan Place 601 Lexington Avenue New York New York 10013 New York New York 10022 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneysfor Respondent sandra.musumeci @kirkland.com Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant REPRODUCED ON RECYCLED PAPER To: BigJimLaw©aol.coliritaol.com]; Subject: RE: Sent: Tue 10/24/2006 5:51:08 PM From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Hi Jim -- Thank you for the e-mail, and I will even forgive the football reference. I was just set for trial, so the earliest I will be able to reschedule the testimony will be after Thanksgiving. I will give you a call to discuss theigunity issue but I am concerned about other things we have talked about -- if Ms. is given immunity, will she be forthcoming and answer the questions? Or am I going to jump through hoops to get her immunity and then have to worry about filing motions to compel, motions for orders to show cause why she shouldn't be held in contempt, etc., etc.? As always, thank you for your assistance. Regards, Marie A. Marie Villafaiia Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 [email protected] From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 12:00 PM To: Villafana, Ann M (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Sorry I did nnot get back to you sooner. I have been out of town for several weeks. As to Miss she still does not wish to testify in this case and has a Fifth Amendment basis for her position. She wishes not to accept the "proffer letter " cover of immunity, which again is her right. I think it is a waste of time to have her appear Friday to just take the Fifth. I suggest that you huddle with your people. (It is football season). If you want to push the issue you will have to get formal imawagy. I will accept service now and in the future for you so you don't have to chase =I down. Jim Eisenberg EFTA00191153 To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. USAFLSNO=USA/OU=FLS/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=AVILLAFANA]; Subject: Re: Sent: Fri 2/2/ 007 2:36:10 PM From: [email protected] I just wrote you a letter confirming that Ms. will be at the grand jury room with me. Please keep me informed as to the time. I must warn you, my e critical of your office, although not at all critical of you. If you change your mind about forcing Ms to appear, please e-mail or call at once so she does not have to make arrangements for child care to e in court. Thanks, Jim Eisenberg EFTA00191154 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 3:11 PM To: Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein Attachments: 2007.05.22 letter to AUSA Lourie.pdf Gentlemen, Marie and I have already met with Lefcourt, which is really the meeting I promised him. I spoke to him last week and he said he had more information they wanted to present. I told him he could make an appointment to come in again if he wanted to and that we would meet with him again, but I did not promise that we would wait to give him a meeting "before" we charged. So, I think he is really ready for the next level rather than a second meeting with me. Mike Tein also mentioned to me at some point that they wanted to make a presentation on the law and I suggested to him that he contact Matt without telling him exactly what stage of review we were at. I don't know if Tein and Lefcourt have crossed wires or not. In any event, I am forwarding this letter to you. I am going to suggest to Lefcourt the same thing that I suggested to Tein. I assume you would grant his attorneys a chance to make whatever presentation they desire. It would probably be helpful to us in any event to hear their legal arguments in case we have missed something. Whether Alex would be present or grant them another meeting after that is his call. Andy From: Gerald Lefcourt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:05 PM To: Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS) Cc: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Lilly Ann Sanchez Subject: Jeffrey Epstein Andy, attached is a letter seeking meetings, as discussed with you, but with others if it is not resolved. Thanks for your attention. Could you email back so that I know you have received this letter? Gerald B. Lefcourt Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C. 148 E. 78th Street New York New York 10021 Tel. Fax ableletcourtlaw com 153 EFTA00191155 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:52 AM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Operation Leap Year Marie, You will not have approval to go forward tomorrow with an indictment or to poceed by complaint. Alex has your memo and lefcourt's letter but he is out of the district at the US Attorney's conference for the next several days. I'm having trouble understanding - given how long this case has been pending what the rush is. This is obviously a very significant case and alex wants to take his time making sure he is comfortable before proceeding. Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) <[email protected]> To: Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS) <[email protected]>; Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS) <[email protected]> Sent: Mon May 14 10:38:15 2007 Subject: Operation Leap Year Good morning: I just received a call that Epstein's plane is flying from the Virgin Islands to Newark now, so it looks like Epstein is going to show up for his court appearance tomorrow. Can you let me know if the indictment is going tomorrow or, if not, whether we are authorized to proceed by Complaint? Thank you. A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 179 EFTA00191156 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Laurie, Andrew (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:25 AM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein Please put in your file. thx From: Gerald Lefcourt (mallto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:00 PM To: Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein Thanks for the email. I will get back to you as to timing of the meeting. Gerald B. Lefcourt Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C. 148 E. 78th Street New rk 10021 Tel. Fax ax courtlaw.com From: Lourle, Andrew (USAFLS) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:32 PM To: Gerald Lefcourt Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein I have your letter. I think we are on the same page, but to be sure I do want to clarify that we spoke the other week and I did say that if you want to meet with me again, I am ready to do so. The wording of your letter, however, suggests implicitly that I agreed to contact you before a decision is made to seek an indictment of Mr. Epstein. If that was your understanding, then please allow me to clarify. Our investigation is ongoing and if we decide to seek an indictment, we don't intend to call Mr. Epstein's representatives to let him know that. Of course, in the interim, if you would like to make a presentation to us, we are willing to listen. Along those lines, given the fact that we have already met once, with schedules being what they are, it makes sense for our criminal chief, Matt Menchel, to be included when you make another presentation, rather than working up the chain incrementally. I realize you were being respectful in not attempting to leapfrog over me, which I appreciate. I will pass on your request to meet with the U.S. Attorney as well, but can't commit for him one way or another. When you have some dates in mind, let me know and I will try to set up a meeting in Miami. From: Gerald Lefcourt [mailto:[email protected]) Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:05 PM To: Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS) Cc: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Lilly Ann Sanchez Subject: Jeffrey Epstein 191 EFTA00191157 Andy, attached is a letter seeking meetings, as discussed with you, but with others if it is not resolved. Thanks for your attention. Could you email back so that I know you have received this letter? Gerald B. Lefcourt Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C. 148 E. 78th Street New York New York 10021 Tel. Fax bl e court aw.com 142 EFTA00191158 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 5:04 PM To: Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein I just received a call from the FBI telling me that Vanity Fair is sniffing around again. The reporter is a former detective. He told the FBI agent that his sources tell him "the State has been bought off," and asked if our investigation had been sent to "the circular file." Nesbitt responded, "All I can tell you is that we have an open investigation." On another note, I am going to see the grand jury tomorrow and I anticipate a number of questions regarding the status of the indictment. I'm not sure what, if anything, I can tell them. And I did not hear back regarding making changes to the indictment. Can I get some feedback on that? Thank you. A. Marie Villafafia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Tracking: 128 EFTA00191159 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 3:24 PM To: Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Meeting Next Week Sounds good. I will stop by on Monday afternoon. Could you just let you assistant know that I may be slopping by to get a copy of whatever the defense sends over? Thanks. A. Alarie Villgfitho Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 From: Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:58 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Cc: Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Meeting Next Week Meeting on Monday is fine. I have meetings with Alex and Jeff till around 11 but after that I'm free. As for who is going to be at the meeting from our side, I thought you, me, Andy, and Jeff. I thought it best to leave Alex out of it at this venture. As for the Epstein camp, I'm not entirely sure because I don't think Lily was sure last time we spoke. Probably her, Lefcourt, Black and maybe Lewis. Lily told me that they wanted to present something in writing before the meeting which was why she was pushing us for the statutes. I view the meeting more as us listening and them presenting their position so I would say that you don't need to prepare anything (you are quite knowledgeable on the law in any event) but if you disagree we can discuss on Monday. As for the documents that they have yet to produce, I'll mention it to Lily if you like or we can raise it with them at the Tuesday meeting. From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 1:37 PM To: Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); McMillan, John (USAFLS); Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: Meeting Next Week Importance: High Hi Matt: I would like to prepare for next week's meeting, and I am wondering if you can tell me who will attend, both from our side and for Mr. Epstein. I am hoping that we can meet on Monday to discuss any issues and/or strategy before the meeting on Tuesday, so please let me know when you will be available on Monday. 114 EFTA00191160 Also, if there are any issues that you would like me to be prepared to address — either with you on Monday or with defense counsel on Tuesday — please give me a list and I will bring the appropriate items with me. Since Lilly has been communicating with you directly about the meeting, and I have given them the list of statutes that they have requested, perhaps you could ask her to reciprocate by providing us with their written analysis (or documents they want us to consider) prior to the meeting so we can address any issues then and there. Also, during a previous meeting, I asked Lilly and Gerry for copies of Epstein (or his assistants') agendas and calendars to show that, as they claim, Epstein's travels to Florida were consciously coordinated so that he could maintain his Florida residency for tax purposes. Lilly said she would try to get them to us, but has never done so. I have subpoenaed all of the corporate entities with which Epstein is affiliated and they all claim that they do not have any responsive documents. I will plan to be in Miami by around 10:00 on Monday morning, so any time after that is fine. Thank you. A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Tracking: 115 EFTA00191161 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 6:26 AM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS); Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS) Cc: Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Ball, Shawn (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Importance: High I have received a couple of calls and an e-mail from Lilly Ann Sanchez asking for an extension of time to respond to several subpoena. She also states that they intend to provide us with a "supplement" to their presentation and what they believe will be their resolution with the state. I intend to send a response stating that the subpoenas for financial documents can be put off, but we want to get the computer equipment that was removed from Epstein's home prior to the state search warrant as soon as possible. I also intend to invite her to call me to discuss a resolution of the federal investigation that could include concurrent time. If anyone has communicated anything to any of Epstein's attorneys that is contrary to this, please contact my assistant, Shawn Ball, as soon as possible. I have asked Shawn to send out the e-mail while I am in trial. You will all receive a copy of the e-mail when it is sent. Thank you. A. Marie Villafaila Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Tracking: 106 EFTA00191162 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 Marie A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Original Message From: Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:30 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein Marie, Both the tone and substance of your email are totally inappropriate and, in combination with other matters in the past, it seriously calls your judgment into question. As you well know, the US Attorney has not even decided whether to go forward with a prosecution in this matter, thus you should have respected his position before engaging in plea negotiations. Along that same line, despite whatever contrary representations you made to the agents in this matter, it was made clear to you by the US Attorney and the First Assistant from the time when you were first authorized to investigate Mr. Epstein that the office had concerns about taking this case because of petit policy and a number of legal issues. Despite being told these things, you prepared a pros memo and indictment that included a definitive date for indictment. It has come to my attention that you led the agents to believe that the indictment of this matter was a foregone conclusion and that our decision to put off that date and listen to the defense attorneys' concerns is indicative of the office having second thoughts about indicting. As you well knew, you were never given authorization by anyone to seek an indictment in this case. Lily Sanchez called me before, not after, the June 26th meeting. It was an informal discussion and not in the nature of an official plea offer but rather a feeling out by both sides as to what it might take to resolve the matter. As you are also well aware, the only reason why this office even agreed to look into the Epstein matter in the first instance was because of concerns that the State had not done an adequate job in vindicating the victims' rights. As you and the agents conceded, had Epstein been convicted of a felony that resulted in a jail sentence and sex offender status, neither the FBI nor our office ever would have interceded. You should also know that my discussion with Lily Sanchez was made 62 EFTA00191165 with the US Attorney's full knowledge. Had Lily Sanchez expressed interest in pursuing this avenue further, I certainly would have raised it with all the interested individuals in this case, including you and the agents. In any event, I fail to see how a discussion that went nowhere has hurt our bargaining position. I am also quite confident that no one on the defense team believes that the federal investigation in this matter has been for show. Nor are your arguments that I have violated the Ashcroft memo, the USAM or any other policy well taken. As Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and consistent with the Ashcroft memo and the USAM -- not you. As for your statement that my concerns about this case hurting Project Safe Childhood are unfounded, I made it clear to you that those concerns were voiced by the US Attorney. Whether or not you are correct, matters of policy are always within his purview and any decisions in that area ultimately rest with him. Finally, you may not dictate the dates and people you will meet with about this or any other case. If the US Attorney or the First Assistant desire to meet with you, they will let you know. Nor will I direct Epstein's lawyers to communicate only with you. If you want to work major cases in the district you must understand and accept the fact that there is a chain of command - something you disregard with great regularity. Matt Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 5:16 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS) Subject: FW: Epstein Hi Matt -- I am in trial, so I just got your message. First, it is inappropriate for you to enter into plea negotiations without consulting with me or the investigative agencies, and it is more inappropriate to make a plea offer that you know is completely unacceptable to the FBI, ICE, the victims, and me. These plea negotiations violate the Ashcroft memo, the U.S. Attorney's Manual, and all of the various iterations of the victims' rights legislation. Strategically, you have started the plea negotiations as though we are in a position of weakness, anxious to make the case go away, by telling the defense that we will demand no federal conviction. We left the meeting on June 26th in a stronger position than when we entered, and your statement that a state resolution would satisfy us takes away that advantage. If you make it seem like the U.S. Attorney doesn't have faith in our investigation, Epstein has no incentive to make a deal. 63 EFTA00191166 Second, your discussion makes it appear that my investigation is for "show" only and completely undermines my ability to deal with Epstein's attorneys directly. In my eight years of civil practice (before the six years that I have spent with this Office), I have litigated against attorneys far more formidable than Roy Black and Alan Dershowitz and have managed to convince the Eighth, Ninth, and Federal Circuits that my legislative interpretation was correct. Your concerns about this prosecution hurting the rest of the Project Safe Childhood Program are unfounded. My trial should end early next week. I would like to make a presentation to the U.S. Attorney, Jeff, Andy, and you with our side of the investigation and a revised indictment. The presentation will address the points raised by Epstein's counsel and will convince you all of the strength of the case. In the meantime, please direct all communications from Epstein's counsel to me. A. Marie Villafaha Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Original Message From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 1:47 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Marie, my blackberry is giving me trouble so I'm using jeff's. I told lily that a state plea with jail time and sex offender status may satisfy the usa. It was a non-starter for them Matt Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com) Tracking: 64 EFTA00191167 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Gerald Lefcourt [GBL©lefcourtlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 5:19 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez; Roy BLACK Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein Attachments: 2007-07-18 Villafana re NES subpoena.pdf Marie please consider this letter in response to the subpoena to NES. Gerald B. Lefcourt Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C. 148 E. 78th Street New York, New York 10021 Tel. Fax gb1Plefcourtlaw.com Original Message From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) (mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 4:07 PM To: Lilly Ann Sanchez Cc: Gerald Lefcourt Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Lilly and Gerry: Thank you for your e-mail and your message. This e-mail was supposed to have gone out yesterday while I was in trial. I have no objection to the two-week extension with respect to NES, New York Strategy Group, and Epstein Virgin Islands Foundation. With respect to the subpoena to the investigator, I would like to get the computer equipment as soon as possible. If you prefer to simply turn over the equipment without anyone appearing before the grand jury that is fine. If we proceed that way, we can defer litigating the issue of the applicability of the attorney-client and/or work product privilege to information related to how and why the equipment was removed. I will be in trial this week, so please contact Jason Richards at the FBI directly at 561 833-7517. I look forward to your July 11th submission. If you would like to discuss the possibility of a federal resolution of Mr. Epstein's case that could run concurrently with any state resolution, please leave a message on my voicemail at the office (561 209-1047) and I will get back to you after trial has ended for the day. Thank you. A. Marie Villafaha Assistant U.S. Attorney 51 EFTA00191168 561 209-1047 Original Message From: Lilly Ann Sanchez [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 4:05 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Cc: Gerald Lefcourt Subject: Jeffrey Epstein Marie- As i stated in my earlier voicemail today, we were calling to request a two-week extension on the return date of the following outstanding subpoenas: 1. NES 2. NY Strategy 3. Investigator Riley 4. Certification for St. Thomas entity We will be providing an additional submission to the Office by July 11 and hope to be able to reach a state-based resolution shortly thereafter. as your voicemail to me indicted, you would not oppose a one to two-week extension. accordingly, we would like to extend the return date two weeks-- to July 24. regards Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. Espirito Santo Plaza, 14th Floor 1395 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 789-9200 Direct Dial: (305) 789-9279 Facsimile: (305) 728-7579 lsanchez0fowler-white.com 52 EFTA00191169 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 9:29 AM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Meeting on Friday Hi Jeff— The ASAIC will be there for the meeting. I think she also will be at the OLEOS. A. Ma•ie Villafasia Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 11:44 AM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Meeting on Friday Let's get together at 1:30. FBI is welcome but let's try to limit it to one representative. Is that o.k.? From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 11:29 AM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: Meeting on Friday Hi Jeff-1 just left you a voicemail, so you can disregard that. We had a very good meeting with Drew on Friday. No one was sure whether you want an FBI presence at the meeting on Friday and Drew thought I should ask you. Could you let me know? And does the meeting with Epstein's team start at 2:00? Is there a plan for a pre-meeting meeting with our folks? Thanks. A. Marie VillafaPia Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 Tracking: 3250 EFTA00191170 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:47 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein Hi Jeff— Funny you should ask. I have been wondering the same thing. Here is the term sheet and guidelines calculation that we provided at the last meeting. You and Matt and I had also discussed a possible federal plea to an Infonnation charging a 371 conspiracy, with a Rule II plea with a two-year cap. but I think Matt must have asked Alex about it and it was nixed. Just to be prepared for tomorrow, I was just starting to draft a Rule I I plea agreement in case Alex changes his mind and a formal non-prosecution agreement containing the state plea tenns. As soon as those are ready, I will e- mail them to you. Conf Plea igotlations= There are three concerns that I hope we can address tomorrow. First, that there is an absolute drop-dead date for accepting or rejecting because it is strategically important that we indict before the end of September, which means presenting the indictment on September 25th. Second, the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as Drew politely reminded me. is required under the law. And third. I do not want to make any promises about allowing Epstein to self-surrender because I still believe that we have a good chance of getting him detained. On another note, Junior got a call today from the Palm Beach Police Chief because he got information that there will be an article released tomorrow about our meeting and that Epstein is going to plead to a state charge and the Chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal. There has been some coverage in the New York press about Ken Starr, but I haven't seen anything local yet. A. Mork Villafirila Assistant U.S. Attorney 561 209-1047 From: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:35 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Please refresh my recollection. What is the "deal" on the table? Tracking: 3245 EFTA00191171 Recipient Read Siornan. Jett (USAFLS) Read: 9/6/2007 5:58 PM 3296 EFTA00191172 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, September 10,2007 5:24 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS): Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS) Subject: FBI Jeff and Andy — The agents arc asking whether Alex had a chance to talk to the SAIC. Do you know? A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 Tracking: 3231 EFTA00191173 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 8:10 PM To: Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: RE: Epstein Eli Drew -- I tracked down the AUSA in Alaska and he is sending the trust agreement out to me. I will let you know how things go in the morning. Thanks. A. Akirk Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 From: Oosterbaan, Andrew Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 7:54 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein Thanks for the information, Marie. I'll get the details on the Boehm arrangements from the prosecutors and get back to you tomorrow. I believe the girls agreed to the arrangement, but I'll confirm that. I should have the indictment reviewed by then as well. From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 7:37 PM To: Oosterbaan, Andrew Subject: Epstein Hi Drew — Sorry to bother you, but the plea negotiations are getting fast and furious. Epstein's lawyers are fixated on this idea of a "victim's fund" rather than having the girls file separate 2255 actions. I know that the reason they want to do it is not out of the goodness of their hearts but to keep this stuff out of the public Court files, but in some ways it will help the girls, too. Do you know anything about how the fund in Alaska was worked out? Did all the victims consent or did the Court just do it? Thank you for your help. I also turned in the indictment package to my immediate supervisor today, so I expect some edits back from her before it goes higher up the chain. If you had any thoughts, please let me know. A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 3164 EFTA00191174 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 10:35 AM To: Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS): Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein Hi Rolando • Here is the last e-mail that I sent to Jay last night. Jay talked with his client about it and reports that they are leaning towards options I or 4. They are going to try to make that decision today (there seems to he some dissension in the ranks because Jack Goldberger gave some incorrect information), and draft a proposed either Non-Prosecution Agreement or Plea Agreement. As you can see from my list below, there are a number of things in their last draft that were unacceptable. All of the loopholes that I sewed up they tried to open. So. Jay is supposed to be consulting with Roy Black regarding the correct state information and then will give me a call. I agreed to ask the Judge to take the hearing off calendar tomorrow and to postpone the grand jury appearances that were scheduled from tomorrow. but I told him in no uncertain terms that I am indicting on the 25th so this needs to be resolved early this week. Andy and I talked about all of this as well. Long answer to a short question, sorry. Hi Jay -- This can wait until after the show, but my voice is going so I thought I would type it up. I talked to Andy and he still doesn't like the factual basis. In his opinion, the plea should only address the crimes that we were addressing, and we were not investigating Mr. Epstein abusing his girlfriend. So, these are the only options that he recommended: 1. We go back to the original agreement where Mr. Epstein pleads only to state charges and serves his time in the state, except that we can agree to only 18 months imprisonment. 2. Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to the state charges and also pleads to either two obstruction counts or to one count of violating 47 USC 223(a)(1)(B), with a joint non-binding recommendation of 18 months, so that Mr. Epstein can serve his time federally. 3. (My suggestion only, not Andy's): I go back to the U.S. Attorney and ask him to agree to an ABA- plea to a 371 count (conspiracy to violate 2422(b)) with a binding 20-month recommendation s