This article will be a resource base of facts and legal actions associated with the Epstein/Maxwell network. It is a work in progress. I have a lot of information on this, but there is much that’s come out recently that I haven’t looked at yet. Check back. This one will get bigger. One thing is important to mention. The victims of Epstein/Maxwell et al deserve to be commended for pursuing the legal actions that have been obstructed by the government and largely ignored by the press until now. It’s hitting a critical mass now that’s too big to be ignored.
There are so many facts that have been generated from these legal actions and subsequent reporting that it all forms a very cohesive, easy to understand story if anyone takes the time to organize it all. Of course the press does not do that. Media-generated distractions of politics and lewd, emotionally-charged language are designed to overload your tolerance for these topics with their deliberately created negative emotions.
Another important point- the approach of calling several women “co-conspirators” in the crimes of this international network was a scare tactic to get them to lawyer up and be silent. Many witnesses should certainly have been given immunity and protection in exchange for testimony to destroy this network.
May 25, 1979. Sarah Kellen born. DEPOSITION
August 1983. Virginia Roberts born. SOURCE
October 1983. Adriana Ross born. DEPOSITION
Summer 1996. Alan Dershowitz, according to him, was introduced to Jeffrey Epstein by Lynn Forester de Rothschild. SOURCE
1998. “She (Virginia Roberts) was working as a changing room assistant in the spa at Donald Trump’s palatial Florida country club, Mar-A-Lago, where her father was a maintenance manager. Soon after her 15th birthday, in 1998, she says she met Ghislaine at the club.” SOURCE 1. SOURCE 2.
March, 2001. Virginia Roberts is taken by Epstein and Maxwell to Zorro Ranch in New Mexico for scientist Marvin Minsky. SOURCE.
March 13, 2001. Virginia Roberts is taken by Epstein and Maxwell to London for Prince Andrew. SOURCE
May 2001. Virginia Roberts is taken by Epstein and Maxwell to Naomi Campbell’s 31st birthday party on a yacht in French Riveria. The date is an estimate from Naomi’s birthday. SOURCE
September 11, 2001. Never Forget.
Around 2001-2002. From Virginia Robert’s deposition: “”Clinton was present on the island at a time when I was also present on the island, but I have never had sexual relations with Clinton, nor have I ever claimed to have had such relations. I have never seen him have sexual relations with anyone,” (Virginia) Roberts wrote. “In papers filed Wednesday (January 2015) in Florida federal court, “Jane Doe No. 3,” Virginia Roberts, detailed an 11-person orgy in 2001 with the British prince, who’s been dubbed “Randy Andy.” SOURCE /. Bubba was accompanied by two of Epstein’s regular girlfriends and “two young girls that I could identify,” Roberts claimed. SOURCE
Early 2002. Epstein’s flight logs show President Clinton begins flying on Epstein’s plane all over the world. The press wants to focus on Little St. James Island only. This is an international network.
October 28, 2002. Article where Trump references his association with Epstein; “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” SOURCE. 15 years ago Trump was likely introduced to Epstein by Alan Greenberg of Bear Stearns.
Fall 2002. Adriana (Mucinska) Ross comes to the United States from Poland on a business visa working for Elite Models. DEPOSITION
January 2004. “January 2004, (Marie Villafana) transferred to the West Palm Beach (US Attorneys) branch office. Villafaña handled the majority of the child exploitation cases in West Palm Beach, along with other criminal matters.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
January 20, 2004. US Congress legislates the Crime Victims Rights Act. (CVRA). CONGRESS
April 1, 2004. “Samuel R. Berger, a national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, has agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge and give up his security clearance for three years for removing classified material from a government archive, the Justice Department and associates of Mr. Berger’s said Thursday. The material involved a classified assessment of terrorist threats in 2000, which Mr. Berger was reviewing in his role as the Clinton administration’s point man in providing material to the independent commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.” SOURCE. Berger tried to destroy all copies of a report he was involved with on “Millennium plot” of al-Qaeda around 2000. Berger also lied to the FBI but was not charged for it.
November 2004. Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein have a falling out over a bid for property in Palm Beach Florida. The Palm Beach police department receives a tip about Jeffrey Epstein and underaged girls in Palm Beach. The Washington Post article implies that Trump was responsible for the tip. SOURCE. Trump also talked extensively to Bradley Edwards, attorney for some of Epstein’s victims. The property Trump and Epstein were bidding on probably had “blackmail material” on the grounds, in my opinion. Trump’s mentor, Roy Cohn, was a pedophile who was responsible for disposing of bodies of victims. Epstein and Trump probably represented various power bases trying to control this blackmail information (Israel and Russia), but this is all speculative.
March 15, 2005. Palm Beach PD begins an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. SOURCE
June 2005. “R. Alexander Acosta was appointed Interim U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in June 2005, at age 36.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
September 24, 2005. Sandy Berger flies on Epstein’s plane from St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, to New Jersey. SOURCE
October 20, 2005. Epstein’s home is raided by Palm Beach PD. The house had been stripped of the computers and most of the electronics. Epstein left a picture of himself, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Pope John Paul II. SOURCE Attorney Bradley Edwards questioned Adriana Ross about whether or not Sandy Berger had called the house and tipped them off. These screenshots are from the deposition of Adriana Ross. SOURCE
November 17, 2005. Alan Dershowitz flies on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane to Montreal, Canada and back. SOURCE
November 21, 2005. Palm Beach PD interviews Jose Alessi, probable cause affidavit, former houseman for Jeffrey Epstein. SOURCE
2006. “In 2006, (EXACTLY WHEN, DOJ?) Villafaña assumed responsibility for the Epstein investigation. As the line AUSA, Villafaña handled all aspects of the investigation” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
Early 2006. “(Epstein’s) defense team aggressively investigated victims and presented the State Attorney’s Office with voluminous material in an effort to undermine some of the victims’ credibility, including criminal records, victims’ social media postings (such as MySpace pages) about their own sexual activity and drug use… Epstein’s local counsel brought attorney Alan Dershowitz to see Krischer and the Assistant State Attorney, but Dershowitz was “overly aggressive” and threatened, “We’re going to destroy your witnesses; don’t go to court because we’re going to destroy those girls.” SOURCE
Early 2006. “In early 2006, a West Palm Beach FBI Special Agent who worked closely with AUSA Ann Marie Villafaña on child exploitation cases—and who is referred to in this Report as “the case agent”—mentioned to Villafaña in “casual conversations” having learned that the PBPD was investigating a wealthy Palm Beach man who recruited minors for sexual activity. The case agent told Villafaña that the PBPD had reached out to the FBI because the State Attorney’s Office was considering either not charging the case or allowing the defendant to plead to a misdemeanor charge. Villafaña suggested meeting with the PBPD, but the case agent explained that before formally presenting the case to the FBI, the PBPD wanted to see how the State Attorney’s Office decided to charge Epstein.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
April 17, 2006. Florida offers Epstein a Plea to Aggravated Assault with Intent to Commit a Felony. Epstein rejects it. SOURCE
May 2006. “… the lead Detective (Joseph Recarey) handling the state’s investigation met with (Marie) Villafaña and the FBI case agent to summarize for them the information learned during the state’s investigation. At the time, neither Villafaña nor the case agent had heard of Epstein or had any knowledge of his background. According to Villafaña, during this meeting, the Detective expressed concern that “pressure had been brought to bear on . . . Krischer by Epstein’s attorneys,” and he and Chief Reiter were concerned the state would charge Epstein with only a misdemeanor or not at all. The Detective explained that the defense had hired private investigators to trail Reiter and the Detective, had raised claims of various improprieties by the police, and, in the view of the PBPD, had orchestrated the removal of the Assistant State Attorney initially assigned to handle the matter, who was viewed as an aggressive prosecutor, by hiring a defense attorney whose relationship with the Assistant State Attorney created a conflict of interest for the prosecutor. Further, given the missing computer equipment and surveillance camera videotapes, the Detective believed Epstein may have been “tipped off” in advance about the search warrant. DOJ Report Alex Acosta
May 2006. “Police sign a probable cause affidavit charging Epstein and two of his assistants with multiple counts of unlawful sex acts with a minor. The Palm Beach state attorney, Barry Krischer, instead refers the case to a grand jury.” SOURCE
May 01, 2006. “On May 1, 2006, Reiter submitted to Krischer probable cause affidavits and a case filing package relating to Epstein, one of his personal assistants, and a young local woman whom Epstein first victimized and then used to recruit other girls. In his transmittal letter, which was later made public, Reiter criticized Krischer, noting that he found the State Attorney’s Office’s “treatment of these cases [to be] highly unusual.”16 Reiter urged Krischer “to examine the unusual course that your office’s handling of this matter has taken” and to consider disqualifying himself from prosecuting Epstein.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
May 23, 2006. “…(Marie) Villafaña prepared the paperwork to open a USAO case file. Villafaña
told OPR that several aspects of the case implicated federal interests and potentially merited a
federal prosecution: (1) the victimization of minors through the use of facilities of interstate
commerce (the telephone and airports); (2) the number of victims involved; (3) the possibility that
Epstein had been producing or possessing child pornography (suggested by the removal of the
computer equipment from his residence); and (4) the possibility that improper political pressure
had affected the State Attorney Office’s handling of the case. The investigation was named
“Operation Leap Year” because the state investigation had identified approximately 29 girls as
victims of Epstein’s conduct.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
June 2006. “The grand jury, after hearing from only one girl, returns an indictment of one count of solicitation of prostitution. The charge does not reflect that the victim in question and others were minors.” SOURCE
June 2006. “In June 2006, President George W. Bush formally nominated Acosta ( to be US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida) and after Senate confirmation, Acosta was sworn in as the U.S. Attorney in October 2006.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
July 14, 2006. “Villafaña Informs Acosta and Sloman about the Case: Because Villafaña was not familiar with Epstein, she researched his background and learned that he “took a scorched earth approach” to litigation. Villafaña was aware that Epstein had hired multiple lawyers to interact with the State Attorney’s Office in an effort to derail the state case, and she believed he would likely do the same in connection with any federal investigation. Therefore, Villafaña arranged to meet with U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Jeffrey Sloman, who at the time was the Criminal Division Chief.21 Villafaña told OPR that she had never before asked to meet with “executive management” about initiating a case, but the allegations that Epstein had improperly influenced the State Attorney’s Office greatly troubled her. Villafaña explained to OPR that she wanted to ensure that her senior supervisors were “on board” with the Epstein investigation. In addition, she viewed Sloman as a friend, in whom she had particular confidence. At this point, although Villafaña’s immediate supervisor was aware of the case, Villafaña did not inform Andrew Lourie, who was then in charge of the West Palm Beach office and her second-line supervisor, about the matter or that she was briefing Acosta and Sloman.” …. “Both Acosta and Sloman told OPR that they did not recall the July 2006 meeting with Villafaña.“
July 19, 2006. “Several days after Villafaña spoke with Acosta and Sloman, on July 19, 2006, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek presented the case to the state grand jury.
Krischer told OPR that “the whole thing” was put before the grand jury. According to a statement made at the time by the State Attorney’s Office spokesman, the grand jury was presented with a list of charges from highest to lowest, without a recommendation by the prosecutor, and deliberated with the prosecutor out of the room. The state grand jury returned an indictment charging Epstein with one count of felony solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07, a felony under state law because it alleged three or more instances of solicitation.25 The indictment did not identify the person or persons solicited and made no mention of the fact that Epstein had solicited minors.26 On July 23, 2006, Epstein self-surrendered to be arrested on the indictment, but was not detained, and the charges were made public. DOJ Report Alex Acosta. Note that the DOJ’s version of the grand jury investigation is contradicted by the Miami Herald in the June, 2006 block above. Whereas Krischer said the jury saw the “whole thing,” the Miami Herald says the jury saw information on only one person.
July 24, 2006. “On July 24, 2006, Villafaña alerted Sloman, who informed Acosta, that the State Attorney’s Office had charged and arrested Epstein. On that same day, the FBI in West Palm Beach formally opened the case, assigning the case agent and, later, a co-case agent, to investigate it. Villafaña told Sloman that the FBI agents “are getting copies of all of the evidence and we are going to review everything at [the] FBI on Wednesday,” and she noted that her target date for filing federal charges against Epstein was August 25, 2006. Acosta emailed Sloman, asking whether it was “appropriate to approach [State Attorney Krischer] and give him a heads up re where we might go?” Sloman replied, “No for fear that it will be leaked straight to Epstein.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
July 26, 2006. South Florida Sun Sentinel reports that Palm Beach PD wants FBI to investigate. ”I do not feel that justice has been sufficiently served by the indictment that has been issued,” Palm Beach Police Chief Michael S. Reiter wrote to the parents of one alleged victim. SOURCE. The FBI did initiate an investigation of Epstein in July, 2006. SOURCE
June 30, 2006. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) shows that Epstein is a donor. SOURCE
August 2006. “In August 2006, Villafaña drafted her letters to victims who had been initially identified by the FBI based on the PBPD investigative file. Villafaña told OPR that she “made the decision to make contact with victims early,” and she composed the introductory letter and determined to whom they would be sent. Although these letters contained CVRA rights information, Villafaña mainly intended to use them as a vehicle to “introduce” herself and let the victims know the federal investigation “would be a different process” from the State Attorney’s Office investigation in which “the victims felt they had not been particularly well-treated.” Villafaña told OPR that in a case in which she “needed to be talking to young girls frequently and asking them really intimate questions,” she wanted to “make sure that they . . . feel like they can trust me.” Villafaña directed the FBI case agents to hand deliver the letters “as they were conducting interviews.” Villafaña told OPR that the USAO had “no standardized way to do any victim notifications prior to” the filing of federal charges, and therefore Villafaña did not use a template or VNS-generated letter for content, but instead used a letter she “had created and crafted [herself] for another case.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
Late August 2006. “By late August 2006, Villafaña and the FBI had identified several additional victims and obtained “some flight manifests, telephone messages, and cell phone records that show the communication and travel in interstate commerce” by Epstein and his associates. Villafaña reported to her supervisors that the State Attorney’s Office would not provide transcripts from the state grand jury voluntarily, and that she would be meeting with Chief Reiter “to convince him to relinquish the evidence to the FBI.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
August 11, 2006. Jane Doe #2 receives CVRA letter. “Initially, Jane Doe 2 was unwilling to provide any information to the FBI or the Office unless she was assured her statements would not be used against her. She also described Epstein as “an awesome man” and stated that she hoped “nothing happens to” him. (DE 415 at ¶¶ 14-15.) This was during the time period where Jane Doe 2 had obtained counsel paid for by Epstein.” SOURCE
November 2006. “Heavily redacted records released by the F.B.I. appear to show handwritten notes from November 2006 interviews with Maria Farmer and Annie Farmer, outlining key details of their stories, including Maria’s visit to the New York police and her referral to the F.B.I.” SOURCE (Maria Farmer went to police Summer of 1996)
November 15, 2006. “Despite the fact that Lewis had already made contact with the USAO on Epstein’s behalf, Sanchez sent a letter to Villafaña on November 15, 2006, in which she asserted that she and Gerald Lefcourt were representing Epstein and asked that the USAO direct all contact or communications about Epstein to them. In response, Villafaña requested that the defense provide documents and information pertinent to the federal investigation, including the documents and information that Epstein had previously provided to the State Attorney’s Office, and ‘computers, hard drives, CPUs [computer processing units], and any other computer media’ removed from Epstein’s home before the PBPD executed its search warrant in October 2005.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
January 2007. “Beginning in January 2007, and over the course of the ensuing eight months, Epstein’s defense team engaged in extensive negotiations with government lawyers in an effort to avoid indictment.” US COURT OF APPEALS
January 16, 2007. District Court Judge William Zloch notes that US Attorney Marie Villafana suppressed evidence that would have increased the sentencing range of a man convicted of having sexual contact with a minor. Judge Zloch sent Alex Acosta a copy. US v McDaniel 1.16.07
January 20, 2007. “Sen. Hillary Clinton jumped into the fray as a 2008 presidential candidate with the words “I’m in” posted on her Web site.” SOURCE
February 01, 2007. “At the February 1, 2007 meeting with Lourie and Villafaña, Sanchez and Lefcourt set out arguments that would be repeated throughout the months-long defense campaign to stop the federal investigation. In support of their arguments, the defense attorneys provided a 25-page letter, along with documents the defense had obtained from the state’s investigative file and potential impeachment material the defense had developed relating to the victims.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
March 2007. “As early as March 2007, they (prosecutors) sent letters advising each one that “as a victim and/or witness of a federal offense, you have a number of rights.” The letters, which the government distributed over the course of about six months, went on to enumerate the eight CVRA rights then in force—including, as particularly relevant here, “[t]he reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the [Government] in the case” and “[t]he right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.”” US COURT OF APPEALS
May 2007. “By May 2007, government lawyers had completed both an 82-page prosecution memo and a 53-page draft indictment alleging that Epstein had committed numerous federal sex crimes.” US COURT OF APPEALS
May 2007. “In May 2007, following the plan she had outlined to Menchel, Villafaña initiated action requiring production of the computer equipment by a particular date.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta (page 46).
May 01, 2007. “Accordingly, Villafaña drafted an 82-page prosecution memorandum directed to Acosta, Sloman, Menchel (who had replaced Sloman as the USAO’s Criminal Division Chief the previous October, when Sloman became the FAUSA), Lourie, and her immediate supervisor, dated May 1, 2007, supporting a proposed 60-count indictment that charged Epstein with various federal crimes relating to sexual conduct with and trafficking of minors. The prosecution memorandum set forth legal issues and potential defenses relating to each proposed charge; explained why certain other statutes were rejected as proposed charges; described the evidence supporting each count and potential evidentiary issues; and addressed the viability and credibility of each of the victims who were expected to testify at trial.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
May 09, 2007. “After Lourie spoke with the FBI squad supervisor on May 9, 2007, to explain that charges against Epstein would not be quickly approved, he reported to Menchel that the FBI was “not happy” about the delay, adding, “I did not even tell them I think we should bring [Epstein] in, once we decide to charge him, and offer a pre-indictment deal, figuring a judge might never agree to such a deal post indictment. That would have sent them thru the roof.” Lourie explained to OPR that he thought a judge, after seeing an indictment charging the full nature and scope of Epstein’s conduct, might not agree to a plea involving substantially less time or to dismiss substantive charges.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
May 10, 2007. “On May 10, 2007, Lourie emailed Villafaña: [M]arie. I believe that Epstein’s att[orneys] are scared of the victims they don’t know. Epstein has no doubt told them that there were many. Thus I believe the f[ir]st indictment should contain only the victims they have nothing on at all. We can add in the other ones that have myspace [sic] pages and prior testimony in a [superseding indictment]. I think for the first strike we should make all their nightmares come true. Thoughts? (42). (42) Lourie’s references to MySpace pages and “prior testimony” referred to the impeachment information brought forward by defense counsel.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
In a May 10, 2007 email to Menchel, Lourie reported that Epstein’s attorneys “want me to tell them the statutes we are contemplating so Dershowitz can tell us why they don’t apply.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
May 10, 2007. “On May 10, 2007, with Menchel’s concurrence, Lourie sent a copy of Villafaña’s prosecution memorandum to CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan, who in turn sent it to his deputy and another CEOS attorney, asking them to assess the legal issues involved in the case and describing it as a “highly sensitive” case involving “a high profile, very rich defendant.”39 After CEOS reviewed the materials, Oosterbaan responded to Lourie with an email stating that the memorandum was “exhaustive” and “well done” and noting that Villafaña “has correctly focused on the issues as we see them.” He summarized CEOS’s analysis of the application of key facts to the statutes she proposed charging, concurring in Villafaña’s assessments but noting that further research was needed to determine whether certain statutes required proof of a defendant’s knowledge of victims’ ages. Oosterbaan offered to assign a CEOS attorney to work with Villafaña on the case. Lourie forwarded Oosterbaan’s email to Menchel and Villafaña.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta.
May 11, 2007. “In an email to Acosta and Menchel on May 11, 2007, Lourie recommended charging Epstein by complaint and seeking a pre-indictment plea: ‘My current thoughts are that we should charge him. Not sure that I agree with the charging strategy as it is now, but at this point I think we only need to get on the same page as to whether the statutes cover the conduct and whether the conduct is the type we should charge. I think the answer to both is yes, although there is some risk on some of the statutes as this is uncharted territory to some degree. We can decide later what the [charging document] should look like precisely and which victims should be charged. I also think if we choose to go forward, we should start with a complaint, arrest him, detain him . . . and then try to see if he wants a pre-indictment resolution. That would give us more control [over] a plea than if we indict him and need the court’s approval to dismiss counts. We will need to cap him with conspiracy counts to make a plea attractive and the court could give us a hard time with that if we try to dismiss indicted counts.'” DOJ Report Alex Acosta.
May 14, 2007. “on May 14, 2007, Villafaña informed Lourie and Menchel by email that Epstein was flying to New Jersey from the Virgin Islands, and she asked whether she could file charges the next day. Menchel responded that “[y]ou will not have approval to go forward tomorrow,” and explained that Acosta “has your [prosecution] memo,” but was at an out-of-town conference, adding, “This is obviously a very significant case and [A]lex wants to take his time making sure he is comfortable before proceeding.” Menchel told Villafaña he had “trouble understanding” why she was in a “rush” “given how long this case has been pending. DOJ Report Alex Acosta
May 15, 2007. “On May 15, 2007, she emailed Sloman, noting that “[i]t seemed from our discussion yesterday that pestering Alex [Acosta] will not do any good. Am I right about that?” Sloman responded, “Yes.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
May 18, 2007. Date of the first email from Marie Villafana discusses Jeffrey Epstein’s computers. “Villafaña kept Menchel, in particular, well informed of her efforts to obtain the computer equipment. She sent to Menchel, or copied him on, several emails about her plan to obtain the computer equipment; specifically, her emails on May 18, 2007, July 3, 2007, and July 16, 2007, all discussed her proposed steps.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
May 21, 2007. “On May 21, 2007, three weeks after submitting the prosecution memorandum, Villafaña emailed Sloman and Menchel asking for “a sense of the direction where we are headed–i.e., approval of an indictment something like the current draft, a complaint to allow for pre-indictment negotiations, an indictment drastically different from the current draft?” Sloman responded only, “Taken care of.”” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
May 22, 2007. “On May 22, 2007, defense counsel Lefcourt emailed Lourie a letter to “confirm” that Epstein’s attorneys would be given an opportunity to meet with Lourie before the USAO reached a final decision on charging Epstein.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
May 23, 2007. “Although Lourie’s emails show that he had no objection to more senior USAO managers meeting with defense counsel, Villafaña opposed such a meeting. Several emails indicate that Menchel traveled to West Palm Beach to meet with Lourie and Villafaña on the afternoon of May 23, 2007.48 On that same date, Villafaña drafted an email, which she planned to send to Sloman and Menchel, expressing her disagreement with meeting with defense counsel.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
June 2007. Jane Doe #1 receives a standard victim-notification letter, which explained that the case against Epstein was “under investigation” and notified Jane Doe #1 of her rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”). Jane Does 1&2 v US 9.26.11
June 14, 2007. “On June 14, 2007, she supplemented the prosecution memorandum with an addendum addressing “credibility concerns” relating to one of the victims. In the email transmitting the addendum to Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and her immediate supervisor, Villafaña reported, “another Jane Doe has been identified and interviewed,” and the “different strategies” about how to structure the charges left Villafaña unsure whether “to make . . . changes now or wait until we have received approval of the current charging strategy.” The addendum itself related to a particular victim referred to as the minor who “saw Epstein most frequently” and who had allegedly engaged in sexual activity with both Epstein and an Epstein assistant. In the addendum, Villafaña identified documents she had found corroborating four separate statements made by this victim.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
June 25, 2007. “The day before the June 26 meeting, defense counsel Lefcourt transmitted to the USAO a 19-page letter intended to provide ‘an overview of our position and the materials we plan to present in order to demonstrate that none of the statutes identified by you can rightly be applied to the conduct at issue here.'” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
June 26, 2007. “On June 26, 2007, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, Villafaña, the case agent, and the West Palm Beach squad supervisor met at the Miami USAO with Epstein attorneys Dershowitz, Black, Lefcourt, and Sanchez. Dershowitz led the defense team’s presentation. From the USAO perspective, the meeting was merely a “listening session.”54 Echoing the arguments made in Lefcourt’s letter, Dershowitz argued that the USAO should permit the state to handle the case because these were “traditionally state offenses.” The case agent recalled being uncomfortable that the defense was asking questions in an attempt to gain information about the federal investigation, including the number of victims and the types of sexual contact that had been involved.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
June 28-29, 2007 ? “A few days after the June 26, 2007 meeting, Sanchez emailed Villafaña, advising her that Epstein’s defense team would submit additional material to the USAO by July 11, 2007, and hoped “to be able to reach a state-based resolution shortly thereafter.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
June 29, 2007. “In her email to Villafaña on June 29, 2007, Sanchez requested a two-week extension, indicating that she hoped a “state-based resolution” to the case would soon be reached. Villafaña advised her supervisors of the request, and responded to Sanchez that she “would like to get the computer equipment as soon as possible.” Nonetheless, Villafaña eventually agreed to an extension.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta (page 46).
June 29, 2007. ? “Meanwhile, Epstein attorney Roy Black wrote separately to Villafaña, demanding to know whether Villafaña had complied with applicable Department policies before seeking the computer.” (74). (74). “Villafaña forwarded Black’s letter to Menchel, explaining the circumstances relating to the removal of the computer equipment from Epstein’s home, the steps she had taken to make the required consultations in the Department, and that she and Lourie had worked together on her response to Black.” Note: OPR concealed the exact date and content of Roy Black’s email to Villafana on the computers. DOJ Report Alex Acosta
Late June 2007. “Because she recognized the potential significance of this evidence, Villafaña attempted to obtain the missing computers. After Villafaña learned that an individual associated with one of Epstein’s attorneys had possession of the computer equipment that was removed from Epstein’s home, she consulted with Department subject matter experts to determine how best to obtain the evidence. Following the advice she received and after notifying her supervisors, Villafaña took legal steps to obtain the computer equipment. Epstein’s team sought to postpone compliance with the USAO’s demand for the equipment. In late June 2007, defense attorney Sanchez requested an extension of time to comply; in informing Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie of the request, Villafaña stressed that “we want to get the computer equipment that was removed from Epstein’s home prior to the state search warrant as soon as possible.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
July 2007. “Grand jury subpoenas are issued for Epstein’s computers, which were apparently removed from his Palm Beach home prior to the police search.” SOURCE
July 03, 2007. “In a July 3, 2007 email, Villafaña told Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and her immediate supervisor that she intended to initiate plea discussions by inviting Sanchez “to discuss a resolution of the federal investigation that could include concurrent time.” The email primarily concerned other issues, and Villafaña did not explain what the resolution she had in mind would entail.57 Villafaña requested to be advised, “[i]f anyone has communicated anything to Epstein’s attorneys that is contrary to this.” Villafaña, who was aware that Menchel and Lourie had been in direct contact with defense counsel about the case, explained to OPR that she made this request because “people were communicating with the defense attorneys,” and she suspected that those communications may have included discussions about a possible plea.’ DOJ Report Alex Acosta
July 06, 2007. A document given to the court before sentencing of Jeffrey Epstein states that Epstein was an original founder of Clinton Foundation and that Epstein was associated with the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations. SOURCE
July 06, 2007. “In addition to their efforts to stop the government from obtaining the computer equipment, defense counsel also sent letters to the USAO, dated July 6, 2007, and July 25, 2007, reiterating their objections to a federal investigation of Epstein.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta (page 47).
July 07, 2007. “…Jane Doe #1 filed a petition in this Court to enforce her rights under the
CVRA. Jane Doe #1 alleged that she believed plea discussions were under way between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and that the government, by failing to notify her of this
development, had violated her rights under the CVRA. The United States responded to the
petition on July 9, 2008, arguing that (1) a federal indictment had never been returned against
Epstein and therefore the CVRA did not attach, and (2) nevertheless, the U.S. Attorney’s Office
had used its best efforts to comply with the CVRA. The government’s response also disclosed
that the U.S. Attorney’s Office had entered into the NPA with Epstein.” Jane Does 1&2 v US 9.26.11
July 17, 2007. “(Marie Villafana) agreed to extend the date for producing the computer equipment by one week until July 17, 2007. On that day, Epstein initiated litigation regarding the computer equipment. That litigation was still pending at the end of July, when Acosta decided to resolve the federal investigation in exchange for a plea in state court to a charge that carried a two-year sentence. The FBI co-case agent told OPR that, in a meeting to discuss the resolution, at which the FBI was present, the co-case agent specifically suggested that the USAO wait to pursue a resolution until after the litigation was resolved, but this suggestion was “pushed under the rug” without comment. Although the co-case agent could not recall who was present, the case agent recalled that Menchel led the meeting, which occurred while the litigation was still pending.” … “Acosta told OPR that he had no recollection of Villafaña’s efforts to obtain the missing computers.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
July 18, 2007. “In July 18, 2007, CEOS Chief Oosterbaan emailed Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, stating that he had read Villafaña’s prosecution memorandum “closely,” and noting that “[s]he did a terrific job. As weopined to Andy [Lourie] back in May, [CEOS] agree[s] with her legal analysis. Her charging decisions are legally sound.” Oosterbaan observed:
I have also reviewed the arguments contained in the letters from defense counsel. Their legal analysis is detailed and comprehensive, but I find none of their arguments persuasive. That is not to say that all the arguments are completely devoid of merit. I expect the judge to consider some of the arguments closely. Nevertheless, while the law applicable here is not always crystal clear, the balance of available precedent favors us. From the prosecution memorandum it is clear that Marie has anticipated the strongest legal arguments, scrutinized the applicable law, and has charged the case accordingly. And, while with this prosecution the government clearly faces a strong and determined defense team, it is a challenge well worth facing. I also happen to know that there is absolutely no concern . . . about facing the challenges this case presents. DOJ Report Alex Acosta (page 47).
July 19, 2007. “On July 19, 2007, the day after receiving Oosterbaan’s email supporting a potential prosecution, Villafaña emailed Lourie and Menchel seeking approval to take further investigative steps regarding three of Epstein’s assistants. However, Menchel directed Villafaña to “hold off . . . until we decide what course of action we are going to take on [E]pstein which should happen next week.” Menchel told OPR that he did not specifically recall why he asked Villafaña to wait, but he assumed it was because Acosta was deciding what course of action to take on the case.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta (page 48).
July 22, 2007. Sean Hannity of Fox News teases a segment on Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster. SOURCE This seems related to the negotiations of Jeffrey Epstein, using Mrs. Clinton as leverage. Vince Foster was very clearly assassinated, in my opinion, and there was an investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s involvement with documents belonging to Foster. SOURCE.
July 23, 2007. “On Monday, July 23, 2007, Menchel submitted a resignation notice to Acosta, stating that he would be leaving the USAO effective August 6, 2007.” Footnote 77: “As early as May 4, 2007, Menchel had informed Acosta that he was intending to leave the USAO to enter private practice.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta (page 48).
July 25, 2007. “In addition to their efforts to stop the government from obtaining the computer equipment, defense counsel also sent letters to the USAO, dated July 6, 2007, and July 25, 2007, reiterating their objections to a federal investigation of Epstein. The July 25, 2007 letter included a lengthy “case analysis chart” purporting to support the defense argument that Epstein had committed no federal offense. The July 25 letter also noted that the defense had been consulting with the former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS, reporting that she “supports our position without reservation that this is not a matter upon which the federal statu[t]es should be brought to bear.”” Footnote 75: “The news that the former CEOS Principal Deputy Chief was advising the Epstein team led to an email exchange between Sloman and CEOS Chief Oosterbaan, who commented, ‘By the way, let me know if you want me to put something in writing to you with our position and detailing all of the child prostitution cases she supervised with similar facts.'” Note: The OPR did not name the former CEOS Principal Deputy Chief or explain that CEOS stands for “The Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta (page 47).
July 26, 2007. “Acosta made that decision (to proceed or not proceed with Federal charges) on or before July 26, 2007. On that afternoon, Villafaña met in Miami with Menchel. She told OPR that Sloman, as well as the FBI case agents and their supervisors, were also present, with Lourie participating by telephone. Villafaña told OPR that she expected that the meeting, requested by Menchel, would address the direction of the investigation. However, Villafaña told OPR that after everyone had assembled, Menchel entered the room and stated that Acosta “has decided to offer a two-year state deal.” According to Villafaña, Menchel left the meeting after almost no discussion, leaving Villafaña “shocked and stunned. Menchel told OPR that he did not recall the July 26, 2007 meeting. Nonetheless, he strongly disputed Villafaña’s description of events, asserting that it would have been “directly at odds with his management style” to convene such a meeting, announce Acosta’s decision, and leave without discussion” DOJ Report Alex Acosta (page 49).
July 26-30, 2007. “Villafaña told OPR that between July 26 and July 30, 2007, she had “some sort of discussion” with her supervisors that resulted in her creation of a “term sheet” identifying the proposed terms for resolving the federal investigation through state charges. Sometime during that period, Villafaña left a voicemail message for Menchel. During their OPR interviews, neither Villafaña nor Menchel could recall what Villafaña said in that message.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
July 30, 2007. On July 30, 2007, Menchel emailed Villafaña: “I received your voicemail this morning. I don’t see any reason to change our approach. I think telling them that unless the state resolves this in a way that appropriately vindicates our interests and the interests of the victims, we will seek [federal charges] conveys that we are serious. While Lilly [Sanchez] has represented in the past that this would likely not happen, I never conveyed it in quite these terms before. In any event, this is the course of action that the US Attorney feels comfortable taking at this juncture.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta (page 51).
July 31, 2007. “July 31, 2007, Villafaña emailed a one-page “Terms of Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement” to Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie. Villafaña told OPR she had never before seen or heard of a non-prosecution agreement and that it was a concept “completely foreign” to her.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
August 2007. “The U.S. attorney in Miami, Alexander Acosta, enters into direct discussions about the plea agreement; a motion to compel production of Epstein’s computers is delayed.” SOURCE
August 2007. “Early in the federal investigation, Villafaña recognized the potential significance of obtaining the missing computer equipment. Villafaña told OPR that she and the FBI agents went through every photograph found in Epstein’s house, but found none that could be characterized as child pornography. Nevertheless, Villafaña told OPR that investigators had learned that Epstein used hidden cameras in his New York residence to record his sexual encounters, and she believed he could have engaged in similar conduct in his Palm Beach home. In addition, the computer equipment potentially contained surveillance video that might have corroborated victim statements about visiting Epstein’s home. More generally, in Villafaña’s experience, individuals involved in child exploitation often possessed child pornography. (72). Villafaña’s co-counsel, who had substantial experience prosecuting child pornography cases, similarly told OPR, “Epstein was a billionaire. We knew his house was wired with video, it would be unusual [for] someone with his capabilities not to be video recording” his encounters.” Footnote 72: “In addition, Villafaña became aware that in August 2007, FBI agents interviewed a minor victim who stated that she had been photographed in the nude by Epstein’s assistant, who told the victim that Epstein took pictures of the girls.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta (page 46).
August 07, 2007. “Jane Doe 1 provided information about her abuse and Jane Doe 2’s abuse to the FBI on August 7, 2007.” SOURCE
August 31, 2007. Adriana Ross receives a target letter from the US Attorney’s office. SOURCE DEPOSITION
September 2007. “Federal prosecutors draw up several federal plea agreements that are rejected by Epstein and his attorneys. Epstein signs a non-prosecution agreement on Sept. 24, but his attorneys continue to delay his court appearance.” SOURCE
Mid-September 2007. “By mid-September, the sides had exchanged multiple drafts of what would become an infamous non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Pursuant to their eventual agreement, Epstein would plead guilty in Florida court to two state prostitution offenses, and, in exchange, he and any coconspirators (at least four of whom have since been identified) would receive immunity from federal prosecution.1. 1 The NPA also contained several provisions concerning Epstein’s victims. The government, for instance, agreed to provide a list of known victims to Epstein and, “in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein’s counsel,” to “select an attorney representative” for the victims, to be “paid for by Epstein.” Epstein waived his right to contest liability or damages “up to an [agreed] amount” in a victim’s civil suit, “so long as the identified individual elect[ed] to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agree[d] to waive any other claim for damages.” An odd set-up—and one that, it seems to us, was likely calculated to quickly and quietly resolve as many victim suits as possible.” US COURT OF APPEALS
September 15, 2007. US Attorney Marie Villafana emails Jeffrey Epstein’s defense teams, raising concerns about the government’s plans to indict an underaged victim on criminal charges. Villafana: “I have gotten some negative reaction to the assault charge with [one of Epstein’s co-conspirators] as the victim, since she is considered one of the main perpetrators of the offenses we planned to charge in the indictment. Can you talk to Mr. Epstein about a young woman? We have hearsay evidence that she traveled on Mr. Epstein’s airplane when she was under 18, in and around 2000 or 2001 time frame.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
September 16, 2007. “… (Marie Villafana) corresponded with Epstein’s counsel about having Epstein plead guilty to obstruction of justice for pressuring one of his co-conspirators not to turn over evidence or complying with a previously-served grand jury subpoena. (DE 407 at ¶ 23.) The Office also stated, “On an ‘avoid the press’ note, I believe that Mr. Epstein’s airplane was in Miami on the day of the [co-conspirator] telephone call. If he was in Miami-Dade County at the time, then I can file the charge in the District Court in Miami, which will hopefully cut the press coverage significantly.” They also discussed having Epstein plead guilty to a second charge of assaulting a different co-conspirator.” SOURCE. Note: The “pressuring of a co-conspirator” not to turn over evidence well-describes Adriana Ross and computers which she operated on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein.
September 16, 2007. “On about September 16, 2007, Epstein’s counsel provided a proposed NPA to the Government (Marie Villafana) that extended immunity from federal prosecution not only to Epstein, but also to certain co-conspirators.” Note: The US Attorney strategy of targeting young women as international human traffickers was likely designed by Epstein’s attorneys, in my opinion. They can bargain with this miscarriage of justice to reduce Epstein’s charges later. Doe v US 2.21.19
September 17, 2007. Epstein attorney Jay Lefkowitz responded to Marie Villafana in an email: “[D]o you have another obstruction proffer I can review that you have drafted? Also, if we go that route, would you intend to make the deferred prosecution agreement public?” Note: This is likely a reference to an Obstruction charge related to Adriana Ross and the computers.
September 18, 2007. “the (US Attorneys) Office responded: “A non-prosecution agreement would not be made public or filed with the Court, but it would remain part of our case file. It probably would be subject to a FOIA request, but it is not something that we would distribute without compulsory process.” Doe v US 2.21.19
September 19, 2007. “In a Sept. 19, 2007, email, a lawyer for Mr. Epstein offered a statement to the government that said Mr. Epstein changed his flight plan to land in the U.S. Virgin Islands instead of New Jersey after he learned that one of his associates was contacted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Epstein was never charged with obstruction of justice.” US COURT OF APPEALS
September 19, 2007. “”Andy [who wasn’t further identified in the filing] recommended that some of the time issues be addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn’t obvious to the judge that we are trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison purposes,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana wrote to Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz in a Sept. 19, 2007, email. “I will include our standard language regarding resolving all criminal liability and I will mention ‘co-conspirators,’ but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge … maybe we can set a time to meet, if you want to meet ‘off campus’ somewhere, that is fine. I will make sure that I have all the necessary decision makers present or ‘on call’ as well. Another email a few days later discusses the large number of individuals the FBI considered victims and continuing uncertainty about whether some of the young women were under the age of consent. “I wanted to tell you that I have compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors,” Villafana wrote to Lefkowitz. “There are six others, whose name [sic] we already have, who need to be interviewed by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time of their activity with Mr. Epstein.” SOURCE
September 21, 2007. “Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer wrote (Marie Villafana) about the proposed agreement and added: ‘Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won’t put in writing. After this is resolved I would love to buy you a cup at Starbucks and have a conversation.'” Doe v US 2.21.19
September 23, 2007. “On September 23, 2007, the U.S. Attorney’s Office sent an email to Lefkowitz stating: “It is factually accurate that the list we are going to give you are persons we have identified as victims. If we did not think they were victims, they would have no right to bring suit.”
September 24, 2007. The US DOJ makes a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. “The district court found that “[f]rom the time the FBI began investigating Epstein until September 24, 2007”—when the government formally executed the NPA with Epstein—federal prosecutors “never conferred with the victims about a[n] NPA or told the victims that such an agreement was under consideration.” Doe 1 v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1208 (S.D. Fla. 2019). Worse, it appears that prosecutors worked hand-in-hand with Epstein’s lawyers—or at the very least acceded to their requests—to keep the NPA’s existence and terms hidden from victims. The NPA itself provided that “[t]he parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record” and, further, that “[i]f the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure.” US COURT OF APPEALS
September 24, 2007. “(Marie Villafana) sent an e-mail to a prospective representative for the Epstein victims, entitled ‘Conflict Check.’ The email confirmed the girls’ status as victims, stating: “Please keep this confidential because these are minor victims. This is a preliminary list.” Later on September 24, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an email to Lefkowitz stating: ‘I have compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors.’ (DE 407 at ¶ 36.) As correspondence continued on September 24, 2007, and the NPA was being executed, Lefkowitz sent an email to the line prosecutor stating: ‘Marie – Please do whatever you can to keep this [i.e., the NPA] from becoming public.’ (DE 407 at ¶ 37.). Note: This “prospective representative for the Epstein victim” would likely have been chosen by Jeffrey Epstein’s attorneys.
September 24, 2007. The US government illegally agrees not to prosecute anyone associated with the international child sex trafficking network. In plain English, that’s exactly what phrase “the United States agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova” means. And that’s exactly what they did. Nothing, while the network continued to operate. It violates the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution of the United States in Due Process Clauses to not prosecute crimes in this manner. This NPA denied the right of justice and equality under the law to countless victims. Investigations are supposed to build on past investigations. The DOJ managed to perpetually protect this network with an NPA and some house arrest. They even said “potential co-conspirators.” They specifically said that Jeffrey Epstein could keep his “evidence” – “computers,” which would of course have contained a huge list of victims, rich politicians, traffickers and the like, exposing much of the international network. Further making a mockery of the legal system of the United States, the US attorneys gave the list of all the victims of the trafficking network to the victims, and gave Epstein approval rights over attorneys for the victims, instead of letting the victims choose their own attorney. So much for the adversarial system in Law. So much for the Oaths of the US attorneys to the Constitution of the United States. They should all be prosecuted as “co-conspirators” themselves. Screenshots of the NPA below.
September 26, 2007. “… )Marie Villafana) sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz in which she stated: “Hi Jay (Lefkowitz) – Can you give me a call at 561-[xxx-xxxx] this morning? I am meeting with the agents and want to give them their marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls.” Doe v US 2.21.19
September 27, 2007. “On September 27, 2007, the attorney representative for the victims emailed the Office and asked whether he could get a copy of the indictment or plea agreement to find out ‘exactly what Epstein concedes to in the civil case.’ (Sept. 27, 2007 email, DE 362-2.) Upon inquiry from the Office, Lefkowitz responded by stating that the attorney representative ‘certainly should not get a copy of any indictment.’ Note: Epstein’s attorneys are telling the US Attorneys Office what evidence that Epstein’s victims should be allowed to have access to. “Also on that same day, the line prosecutor sent an email to state prosecutors Lanna Belohlavek and Barry Krischer: ‘Can you let me know when Mr. Epstein is going to enter his guilty plea and what judge that will be in front of? I know the agents and I would really like to be there, ‘‘incognito.’” Doe v US 2.21.19
October-November 2007. “In October and November 2007, the FBI interviewed 12 potential new victims, 8 of whom had been identified in a ‘preliminary’ victim list in use at the time Epstein signed the NPA.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
October 2007. “With the non-prosecution agreement still being debated, Acosta meets with Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz at the West Palm Beach Marriott on Okeechobee Boulevard to discuss finalizing a deal. Among the terms agreed upon: that the victims would not be notified, that the deal would be kept under seal and all grand jury subpoenas would be canceled.” SOURCE
October 10, 2007. “On October 10, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta stating, in pertinent part: ‘Neither federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the case, including appointment of the attorney representative and the settlement process. Not only would that violate the confidentiality of the agreement, but Mr. Epstein also will have no control over what is communicated to the identified individuals at this most critical stage. We believe it is essential that we participate in crafting mutually acceptable communication to the identified individuals.’ The letter further proposed that the attorney representative for the victims be instructed that “[t]he details regarding the United States’s investigation of this matter and its resolution with Mr. Epstein is confidential. You may not make public statements regarding this matter.” Doe v US 2.21.19. Note: Epstein’s attorneys are now ordering the DOJ to take Freedom of Speech away from this network’s victims. They had already taken Justice.
October 12, 2007. “U.S. Attorney Acosta then met with Lefkowitz for breakfast and Lefkowitz followed up with a letter stating, ‘I also want to thank you for the commitment you made to me during our October 12 meeting in which you … assured me that your Office would not … contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter.'” Doe v US 2.21.19
October 14, 2007. Epstein denies that he has been banned from Donald Trump’s property at Maralago. It is unclear if the person referred to here is Virginia Roberts, but her father, Sky Roberts, did work at Maralago. SOURCE
October 26 or 27, 2007. “On about October 26 or 27, 2007, Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards met in person with Jane Doe 1. They explained that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges, he would be required to register as a sex offender for life, and he had made certain concessions related to the payment of damages. (DE 407 at ¶ 70.) According to Jane Doe 1, the Agents did not explain that the NPA had already been signed. (Jane Doe 1 Decl. ¶ 5, DE 361-26.) Jane Doe 1’s understanding was that the federal investigation would continue. (Jane Doe 1 Decl. ¶ 6.) In contrast, Special Agent Kuyrkendall stated that the meeting with Jane Doe 1 was to advise her of the main terms of the NPA.” Doe v US 2.21.19.
November 2007. “Epstein’s lawyers object to an addendum to the agreement. The provision called for a special master to appoint an attorney to represent Epstein victims’ rights to civil compensation.” SOURCE
November 27, 2007. “… AUSA Sloman sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz, (with a copy to U.S. Attorney Acosta) stating that the Office had a statutory obligation to notify the victims about Epstein’s plea to state charges that was part of the NPA: Doe v US 2.21.19.
The United States has a statutory obligation (Justice for All Act of 2004) to notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion. Tomorrow will make one full week since you were formally notified of the selection. I must insist that the vetting process come to an end. Therefore, unless you provide me with a good faith objection to Judge Davis’s selection [as special master for selecting legal counsel for victims pursuing claims against Epstein] by COB tomorrow, November 28, 2007, I will authorize the notification of the victims. Should you give me the go-head on [victim representative] … selection by COB tomorrow, I will simultaneously send you a draft of the letter. I intend to notify the victimsby letter after COB Thursday, November 29th.
November 28, 2007. “…the Government sent an email to Lefkowitz attaching a letter dated November 29, 2007 (the apparent date upon which it was intended to be mailed) and explained that “I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office have reached an agreement containing the following terms.” The proposed letter then spelled out a number of the provisions in the NPA, including that because Epstein’s plea of guilty to state charges was ‘part of the resolution of the federal investigation,’ the victims were ‘entitled to be present and to make a statement under oath at the state sentencing.'” Doe v US 2.21.19.
November 29, 2007. “… (Jay) Lefkowitz sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Acosta objecting to the proposed victim notification letter, stating that it is inappropriate for any letter to be sent to the victims before Epstein entered his plea or had been sentenced. Lefkowitz also told the Government that the victims should not be invited to the state sentencing, that they should not be encouraged to contact law enforcement officials, and that encouraging the attorney representative to do anything other than get paid by Epstein to settle the cases was to encourage an ethical conflict.” Doe v US 2.21.19
November 30, 2007. “U.S. Attorney Acosta sent a letter to one of Epstein’s defense attorneys, Kenneth Starr, stating: “I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday at 5 p.m., to provide you with time to review these options with your client.” The letter also explained that the line prosecutor had informed U.S. Attorney Acosta “that the victims were not told of the availability of Section 2255 relief during the investigation phase of this matter” despite the fact that the “[r]ule of law … now requires this District to consider the victims’ rights under this statute in negotiating this Agreement.” Doe v US 2.21.19
December 2007. “The two sides continue to debate the addendum. Epstein attorney Kenneth Starr asks for a review of the agreement by the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, further delaying its execution. Victims are told the investigation is continuing.” SOURCE
December 05, 2007. “Starr sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Acosta (with copy to AUSA Sloman) asking about issuance of victim notification letters and stating: ‘While we believe that it is wholly inappropriate for your Office to send this letter under any circumstances, it is certainly inappropriate to issue this letter without affording us the right to review it.’ Doe v US 2.21.19
December 06, 2007. “… AUSA Sloman sent a letter to Lefkowitz stating in part:” Doe v US 2.21.19
[E]ach of the listed individuals are persons whom the Office identified as victims. [T]he Office is prepared to indict Mr. Epstein based upon Mr. Epstein’s ‘interactions’ with these individuals. This conclusion is based upon a thorough and proper investigation – one in which none of the victims was informed of any right to receive damages of any amount prior to the investigation of her claim.
[T]he Office can say, without hesitation, that the evidence demonstrates that each person on the list was a victim of Mr. Epstein’s criminal behavior.
Finally, let me address your objections to the draft Victim Notification Letter. You write that you don’t understand the basis for the Office’s belief that it is appropriate to notify the victims. Pursuant to the ‘Justice for All Act of 2004,’ crime victims are entitled to: ‘The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding … involving the crime’ and the ‘right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding….’ 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) & (3). Section 3771 also commands that ‘employees of the Department of Justice … engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a).’ 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1)….
With respect to notification of the other information that we propose to disclose, the statute requires that we provide a victim with the earliest possible notice of: the status of the investigation, the filing of charges against a suspected offender, and the acceptance of a plea. 42 U.S.C. 10607(c)(3). Just as in 18 U.S.C. 3771, these sections are not limited to proceedings in a federal district court. Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not require the U.S. Attorney’s Office to forego its legal obligations. [T]he Office believes that it has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that each listed individual was a victim of Mr. Epstein’s criminal conduct while the victim was a minor. The law requires us to treat all victims “with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.” 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(8).
December 07, 2007. “…defense attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez sent a letter to AUSA Sloman, requesting ‘that the Office hold off on sending any victim notification letters.’ No letters were sent in December of 2007.” Doe v US 2.21.19
December 12, 2007. Alex Acosta writes a whiney letter to Epstein’s attorney Jay Lefkowitz concerning how much he had tried to help Epstein and that he didn’t really pick an attorney to represent Epstein’s victims because he knew Acosta’s boyfriend, or something. SOURCE Read the rest in the source link if you can stand it. Acosta mentioned a “money laundering investigation” in this letter. Note: Is the money laundering investigation related to information that Epstein provided to the FBI?
December 13, 2007. “(Marie Villafana) sent a letter to Lefkowitz stating that ‘You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further notifications were done.'” Doe v US 2.21.19
December 19, 2007. “U.S. Attorney Acosta sent a letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez stating, ‘I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of time and place of Mr. Epstein’s state court sentencing hearing. We intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notices of the state proceedings.'” Doe v US 2.21.19
January 2008. “Epstein attorney, Lefkowitz, calls Acosta, telling him his client will not go through with the agreement because it requires him to register as a sex offender.” SOURCE
January 2008. “And to be clear, the government’s efforts appear to have graduated from passive nondisclosure to (or at least close to) active misrepresentation. In January 2008, for example, approximately four months after finalizing and executing the NPA, the government sent a letter to Ms. Wild stating that Epstein’s case was “currently under investigation,” explaining that “[t]his can be a lengthy process,” and “request[ing her] continued patience while [it] conduct[ed] a thorough investigation.” The government sent a similar letter to another victim in May 2008, some eight months after inking the NPA.” US COURT OF APPEALS
January 10, 2008. “the FBI sent letters to Plaintiffs advising them that “[t]his case is currently under investigation,” but failing to disclose the existence of the NPA.” Jane Does 1&2 v US 9.26.11
January 31, 2008. “On January 32 (sic), 2008, Jane Doe #1 met with FBI agents and attorneys from the U.S. Attorney’s Office to discuss her abuse by Epstein. The government did not disclose the existence of the NPA.” Jane Does 1&2 v US 9.26.11
February 2008. “With the plea negotiations and the Justice Department review still in limbo, the FBI continues its probe, locating more witnesses and evidence.” SOURCE
2.7.08. FBI report is generated to “report status of forfeiture investigation.” “This case is currently pending a prosecutorial decision at the USAO. This is a highly sensitive investigation; therefore the USAO is proceeding accordingly.” SOURCE
March 2008. “Preparations are made for a new federal grand jury presentation. In court documents, the U.S. Attorney’s Office notes that Epstein’s victims are being harassed by his lawyers, who are not specifically named.” SOURCE
March 19, 2008. “On March 19, 2008, (Marie Villafana) sent a lengthy email to a prospective pro bono attorney for one of Epstein’s victims who had been subpoenaed to appear at a deposition. The email listed the attorneys representing Epstein, the targets of the investigation, and recounted in detail the investigation that had been conducted to that point. The email did not reveal the fact that Epstein had signed the NPA in September 2007. Doe v US 2.21.19
April 27, 2008. Jeff Epstein makes sudden visit to Israel before he is sentenced. In April of that year, the Palm Beach Daily News reported that Epstein was staying at the Tel Aviv Hilton and quoted an Epstein spokesman as saying that he was “spending Passover, meeting with Israeli research scientists, and taking a tour of military bases.” SOURCE
May 2008. “The Justice Department issues finding that, if a plea deal is not reached, Epstein can be federally prosecuted.” SOURCE
May 30, 2008. “… Jane Doe 5, who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that “[t]his case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation.” Doe v US 2.21.19
Mid June, 2008. “In mid-June of 2008, Mr. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted (Marie Villafana) to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims. (Marie Villafana) and Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed in the future. Edwards was led to believe federal charges could still be filed, with no mention whatsoever of the existence of the NPA or any other possible resolution to the case. At the end of the call, the line prosecutor asked Edwards to send any information that he wanted considered by the Office in determining whether to file federal charges. The line prosecutor did not inform Edwards about the NPA.” Doe v US 2.21.19
June 19, 2008. “On June 19, 2008, Edwards sent an email to (Marie Villafana) requesting to meet and discuss plans.” Doe v US 2.21.19
June 23, 2008. “On June 23, 2008, (Marie Villafana) sent an email to Lefkowitz stating that the Deputy Attorney General had completed his review of the Epstein matter and ‘determined that federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein’s case [wa]s appropriate. Accordingly, Mr. Epstein ha[d] until the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein.'”Doe v US 2.21.19
June 27, 2008. “… the U.S. Attorney’s Office notified (Jane Does #1 and 2) counsel that Epstein was scheduled to plead guilty in state court on June 30, 2008. The U.S. Attorney’s Office did not disclose the existence of the NPA nor the relationship between Epstein’s state plea and the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s agreement to forgo federal charges.” Jane Does 1&2 v US 9.26.11
July 2008. “After two victims pursued a federal civil lawsuit seeking enforcement of their rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (“the CVRA litigation” or “the CVRA case”), in July 2008, Villafaña served as co-counsel to the lead attorney representing the USAO until February 2019, when the USAO was recused from handling the litigation (3). (3). After the district court issued its February 21, 2019 opinion finding misconduct on the part of the government, the Department re-assigned the CVRA case to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
June 27, 2008. “On or about June 27, 2008, the Office called Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the entry of Epstein’s guilty plea in state court. (DE 407 at ¶ 107.) According to Edwards, the line prosecutor only told him that Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation of prostitution. He was not told that the state plea was related to the federal investigation or that the state plea would resolve the federal crimes. Edwards claims he was not told his clients could address the state court. (Edwards Decl. ¶¶ 17-18, DE 416-1.) In contrast, the line prosecutor claims she told Edwards that his clients could address the state court. (Villafaña Decl. ¶ 38, DE 403-19.).” Doe v US 2.21.19
June 30, 2008. “Epstein’s lawyers revisit plea negotiations, and on June 30, Epstein appears in a Palm Beach County courtroom. He pleads guilty to state charges: one count of solicitation of prostitution and one count of solicitation of prostitution with a minor under the age of 18. He is sentenced to 18 months in jail, followed by a year of community control or house arrest. He is adjudicated as a convicted sex offender who must register twice a year in Florida.” SOURCE
June 30, 2008. “On or before June 30, 2008, the Office prepared a draft victim notification to be sent to the victims. The notification was designed to inform the victims of the provisions of the deferral of federal prosecution in favor of state charges. The notification letter began by describing Epstein’s guilty plea in the past tense: “On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein … entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida statutes forbidding the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution and felony solicitation of prostitution.” Later, a substantively identical letter was prepared for Epstein’s and his counsel’s review. ” Doe v US 2.21.19
June 30, 2008. “On June 30, 2008, the (US Attorneys) Office sent an e-mail to Epstein’s counsel: “The FBI has received several calls regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement. I do not know whether the title of the document was disclosed when the Agreement was filed under seal, but the FBI and our office are declining comment if asked.” Doe v US 2.21.19.
July 2008. “Epstein’s victims learn about his plea in state court after the fact. They file an emergency petition to force federal prosecutors to comply with the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act, which mandates certain rights for crime victims, including the right to be informed about plea agreements and the right to appear at sentencing.” SOURCE
July 2008. “In July 2008, Ms. (Courtney) Wild brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, styling her initial pleading—which she filed ex parte, without naming a defendant—an “Emergency Victim’s Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim’s Rights Act.” As the district court explained, “because no criminal case was pending” at the time—no federal charges having been filed against Epstein or anyone else—Ms. Wild “filed [her] petition as a new matter . . . which the Clerk of Court docketed as a civil action” against the United States.” US COURT OF APPEALS
July 1, 2008. Jeff Epstein begins “sentence.” SOURCE
July 3, 2008. “…(Jane Does #1 and 2) counsel sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office stating Jane Doe #1’s desire that it bring federal charges against Epstein.” Jane Does 1&2 v US 9.26.11
July 3, 2008. “On July 3, 2008, as specifically directed by the Office, Edwards sent a letter to the Office communicating the wishes of Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 5 that federal charges be filed against Epstein: “We urge the Attorney General and our United States Attorney to consider the fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our children from this very dangerous sexual predator.” Doe v US 2.21.19
July 07, 2008. “Jane Doe #1 filed a petition in this Court to enforce her rights under the
CVRA. Jane Doe #1 alleged that she believed plea discussions were under way between Epstein 3
and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and that the government, by failing to notify her of this
development, had violated her rights under the CVRA.” Jane Does 1&2 v US 9.26.11
July 07, 2008. “On July 7, 2008, (Marie Villafana) corresponded with Epstein’s counsel seeking his signed agreement concerning a notification letter to the victims before beginning the distribution of that letter.” Doe v US 2.21.19
July 09, 2008. “On July 9, 2008, Edwards saw the first reference to the NPA when the Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe’s emergency petition.” Doe v US 2.21.19
July 09, 2008. “On July 9, 2008, Epstein’s counsel sent a letter to the line prosecutor raising concerns about the notifications, and suggesting modifications to the notification letter. Epstein’s counsel also objected to the victim notification letters containing certain information about the NPA. (DE 407 at ¶ 128.) (Marie Villafana) responded: “Without such an express Acknowledgment by Mr. Epstein that the notice contains the substance of that Agreement, I believe that the victims will have justification to petition for the entire agreement, which is contrary to the confidentiality clause that the parties have signed.” Doe v US 2.21.19
July 09, 2008. “The United States responded to the petition on July 9, 2008, arguing that (1) a federal indictment had never been returned against Epstein and therefore the CVRA did not attach, and (2) nevertheless, the U.S. Attorney’s Office had used its best efforts to comply with the CVRA. The government’s response also disclosed that the U.S. Attorney’s Office had entered into the NPA with Epstein.” Jane Does 1&2 v US 9.26.11
July 11, 2008. “…this Court held a hearing on Jane Doe #1’s petition, at which Jane Doe 2 was added as a plaintiff. At the hearing, Plaintiffs explained that their petition did not present an emergency and that therefore an immediate resolution was not necessary. On August 14, 2008, the Court held a status conference and ordered the United States to turn over the NPA to all identified victims, including Plaintiffs, and further ordered the parties to work out the terms of a protective order governing the NPA’s disclosure.” Jane Does 1&2 v US 9.26.11
August 2008. “Epstein’s victims learn that he has already been sent to jail, and that the federal investigation is over. They seek to have his plea agreement unsealed, but federal prosecutors argue against releasing the agreement, commencing a yearlong court battle to learn the terms of Epstein’s plea bargain.” SOURCE
September 3, 2008. The FBI sends a letter to Virginia Roberts, essentially notifying her that her rights under the Crime Victims Reporting Act had been violated by the U.S. D.O.J. entering into a secret agreement with Jeffrey Epstein without informing her. SOURCE
September 11, 2008. FBI closes its investigation of Jeffrey Epstein as he has been prosecuted by the state of Florida. The FBI also says that Epstein has “provided information to the FBI as agreed upon.” SOURCE. What information? How did this information influence the FBI? The public deserves answers to these questions. Note: I would have a lot of questions for Epstein about insider trading, 9/11, and Bear Stearns.
October 2008. “Epstein begins work release from the county stockade. He is picked up by his private driver six days a week and transported to an office in West Palm Beach, where he accepts visitors for up to 12 hours a day. He returns to the stockade in the evenings to sleep.” SOURCE
December 2008. “On December 8, 2008, after the presidential election and while Epstein was serving his state prison sentence, Acosta was formally recused from all matters involving the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, which was representing Epstein, because Acosta had begun discussions with the firm about possible employment.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
2009. “Brad Edwards, an attorney for some of the alleged victims, said in an interview last year that when he was seeking information from Epstein’s acquaintances in 2009, Trump was the only person who picked up the phone and said: ‘Let’s just talk. I’ll give you as much time as you want. I’ll tell you what you need to know.’ Edwards declined to say what Trump told him but said he was ‘very helpful in the information that he gave.'” SOURCE
May 01, 2009. Bradley Edwards takes Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein. DEPOSITION.
May 07, 2009. Bradley Edwards takes Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein. DEPOSITION.
June 2009. “After leaving the USAO in June 2009, Acosta became the Dean of the Florida International University College of Law.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
July 2009. “Epstein is released from the Palm Beach County stockade, five months early. He must register as a sex offender and is on probation for a year, confined to his Palm Beach home except to travel to his office in West Palm Beach. However, records show he frequently makes trips to Manhattan and to his home in the U.S. Virgin Islands.” SOURCE
July 29, 2009. Bradley Edwards takes Deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez, housekeeper at Epstein’s home in Palm Beach. DEPOSITION.
August 07, 2009. Bradley Edwards takes Deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez, housekeeper at Epstein’s home in Palm Beach, DEPOSITION.
August 07, 2009. Bradley Edwards takes Deposition of Larry Morrison, Epstein pilot. DEPOSITION.
September 21, 2009. Bradley Edwards takes Deposition of Mark Epstein, Epstein’s brother. DEPOSITION.
September 22, 2009. Ghislaine Maxwell “was served with a subpoena on Sept. 22 at 6:45 p.m. as she was leaving the Clinton Global Initiatives Conference at the Sheraton Hotel.” Florida lawyer Brad Edwards, who represents three of the “Jane Does” who are suing Epstein, told Page Six that Maxwell would be questioned over her knowledge of how Epstein procured many of the girls.” SOURCE
October 06, 2009. Bradley Edwards takes Deposition of Larry Morrison, Epstein pilot. DEPOSITION.
October 08, 2009. Bradley Edwards takes Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein. DEPOSITION.
October 15, 2009. Bradley Edwards takes Deposition of Larry Visoski, Epstein pilot. DEPOSITION.
October 20, 2009. Bradley Edwards takes Deposition of Louella Rabuyo, property manager at Epstein’s Palm Beach home. DEPOSITION.
November 2009. “One of Epstein’s former butlers tries to sell to an undercover FBI agent a black book filled with the names of hundreds of girls and young women that Epstein allegedly procured for sex and massages. The butler tells FBI agents he witnessed nude underage girls at Epstein’s pool and had known that the millionaire was having sex with them. He also said he saw pornography involving underage girls on Epstein’s computers. The butler/houseman, Alfredo Rodriguez, is later charged with obstruction of justice and sentenced to federal prison. He dies in 2015. The contents of the black book become public as part of several civil lawsuits.” SOURCE
December 10, 2009. Jeffrey Epstein files suit against Bradley Edwards, Scott Rothstein and others. “In the lawsuit filed by West Palm Beach attorney Robert Critton, Epstein claims Rothstein used the lawsuits to lure investors as part of a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme. Trumpeting the chance to turn a quick profit, Rothstein falsely reported that Epstein had agreed to settle the lawsuits for as much as $200 million. By paying a discounted rate up front, they could ultimately cash in when the settlement was paid in full. … Critton claims Rothstein, with the help of attorney Bradley Edwards, who worked for him, pumped up investors by telling them they would call such luminaries as former President Bill Clinton, business tycoon Donald Trump and magician David Copperfield to testify against Epstein. The message was that Epstein would pay big to protect his celebrity friends.” SOURCE
February 16, 2010. Bradley Edwards takes Deposition of Janus Bansiak, butler for Jeffrey Epstein. DEPOSITION begins page 363. Janus testified that Adriana Ross and another person removed 3 computers from a property.
February 17, 2010. Bradley Edwards takes Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein. DEPOSITION.
March 08, 2010. Bradley Edwards takes Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein. DEPOSITION.
March 11, 2010. Bradley Edwards takes Deposition of “Jane Doe,” Epstein victim. DEPOSITION.
March 15, 2010. Bradley Edwards takes Deposition of Adriana Ross, an Epstein victim and a “co-conspirator” in a deal worked out by Alan Dershowitz. Edwards questions implied that Adriana had knowledge of a tip to Jeffrey Epstein before police raided his home. DEPOSITION.
March 23, 2010. The deposition of Bradley Edwards is taken by ?. Note that the deposition papers that I use as reference begin on Page 100 of Edwards deposition. It would be good to see pages 0-100. DEPOSITION.
March 24, 2010. Bradley Edwards takes Deposition of Sarah Kellen. Sarah is a “co-conspirator” in a deal worked out by Alan Dershowitz. Sarah was pressured by Epstein/Maxwell’s network and appears very willing to cooperate with law enforcement. DEPOSITION.
April 13, 2010. February 17, 2010. Bradley Edwards takes Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein. DEPOSITION.
April 14, 2010. Bradley Edwards takes Deposition of Nadia Marcinkova, an Epstein victim and a “co-conspirator” in a deal worked out by Alan Dershowitz. She has avoided public discussion of Epstein. DEPOSITION.
June 29, 2010. “On June 29, 2010, one day before (victim’s lawyer Brad) Edwards was due to fly to New York to take Maxwell’s deposition, her attorney informed Edwards that Maxwell’s mother was deathly ill and Maxwell was consequently flying to England with no intention of returning to the United States.” SOURCE
July 31, 2010. Ghislaine Maxwell attends Chelsea Clinton’s wedding. SOURCE
February 28, March 2, and March 5, 2011. Sharon Churcher writes three articles pertaining to Viriginia Roberts. Churcher 1. Churcher 2. Churcher 3. Later in August 9, 2019, Virginia corrects the reporting by Churcher in 3 places.
March 2011. “Two of Epstein’s victims (Jane Does #1 and 2) file a motion in federal court accusing the government of violating their rights by failing to notify them about the plea deal and keeping it secret. Among other things, they want the plea deal invalidated in the hopes of sending Epstein to prison. They accuse federal prosecutors of deceiving them with ‘false notification letters.’'” SOURCE
March 20, 2011. Former US Attorney Alex Acosta writes a letter to the Daily Beast describing how he was pressured to give favorable treatment to Jeffrey Epstein. He describes it as “an assault.”
September 26, 2011. “U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra rejects the U.S. Attorney’s Office argument that it was under no obligation to notify victims prior to striking a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein because there were no federal charges filed against him. The decision marks a victory for Epstein’s victims, but the case will drag on for seven more years.” SOURCE. Marra’s ruling: Jane Does 1&2 v US 9.26.11
12.30.14. Virginia Roberts, as Jane Doe #3, sues to join Jane Does # 1 and 2, who had already filed suit against the United States for violating their rights under the Crime Victims Reporting Act. SOURCE In this suit Virginia Roberts reported crimes of Alan Dershowitz (I do not believe that people can consent while in the influence of a trafficking ring, regardless of age, and that if you know of the ring, you are complicit), and how Dershowitz negotiated a non-prosecution agreement for himself.
January 2015. “Virginia Roberts files court papers in Florida claiming that she was forced by Epstein to have sex with Prince Andrew and lawyer Alan Dershowitz when she was underage. In a sworn affidavit, she provides photographs of her with the prince and with Epstein’s close associate, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell. She claims Maxwell worked as Epstein’s madam, which she denies. Dershowitz and the prince deny her claims as well, setting off a series of legal actions between Dershowitz and Roberts’ attorneys that are later resolved in an out-of-court settlement.” SOURCE
February 7, 2015. Virginia Roberts: “Based on my knowledge of Epstein and his organisation, as well as discussions with the FBI, it is my belief that federal prosecutors likely possess videotapes and photographic images of me as an underage girl having sex with Epstein and some of his powerful friends.” SOURCE
April 7, 2015. “The federal judge presiding over the never ending victims rights lawsuit seeking to overturn a federal non-prosecution agreement against Jeffrey Epstein yesterday ruled Jane Doe #3, aka Virginia Roberts, and Jane Doe #4 cannot join Jane Does 1 and 2 as parties to the lawsuit. He also ruled that if called as witnesses for Jane Does 1 and 2, their evidence will have to be admissible, relevant and non-cumulative. More importantly, the judge ordered all of Roberts’ claims against Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew and others stricken from the record, finding her allegations amounted to “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” In doing so, the Court said it was acting on its own accord, which made a ruling on Dershowitz’ motion to intervene unnecessary.” SOURCE
September 2015. “Roberts sues Maxwell in federal court in New York, claiming that Epstein’s alleged madam defamed her in public statements in the media. The lawsuit is widely viewed as a vessel for Epstein’s victims to expose the scope of Epstein’s crimes. Several civil lawsuits filed the same year allege that Epstein and Maxwell operated an international sex trafficking operation.” SOURCE
March 17, 2016. Ghislaine Maxwell is ordered to turn over any correspondence between her and Jeffrey Epstein from 1999-2016. SOURCE
2017. “In 2017, President Donald Trump nominated (Alex) Acosta to be Secretary of Labor. At his March 2017 confirmation hearing, Acosta was questioned only briefly about the Epstein case. On April 17, 2017, the Senate confirmed Acosta’s appointment as Labor Secretary.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
May 24, 2017. Virginia Roberts settles lawsuit with Ghislaine Maxwell. SOURCE
November 28, 2018. “On November 28, 2018, however, the Miami Herald published an extensive investigative report about state and federal criminal investigations initiated more than 12 years earlier into allegations that Epstein had coerced girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm Beach estate.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
December 03, 2018. 15 democrats write a letter to the OIG of the DOJ requesting that they investigate the NPA deal and Alex Acosta. Republican Ben Sasse soon joined the request. SOURCE
December 17, 2018. 32 press outlets sue to release documents from the Virginia Roberts v Ghislaine Maxwell lawsuit. SOURCE. “People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.”
February 21, 2019. “On February 21, 2019, the district court granted the CVRA case petitioners’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ruling that the government violated the CVRA in failing to advise the victims about its intention to enter into the NPA.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta Attorney David Boies commented: “As a legal matter, the non-prosecution agreement entered into by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida does not bind other U.S. Attorneys in other districts. They are free, if they conclude it is appropriate to do so, to bring criminal actions against Mr. Epstein and his co-conspirators,” SOURCE Here is the ruling where Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that the government violated the CVRA rights of Jane Does #1 and 2: Jane Does 1&2 v US 2.21.19
July 08, 2019. Jeffrey Epstein is arrested on a two-count indictment for sex trafficking conspiracy and sex trafficking of children.
July 10, 2019. “On July 10, 2019, (Alex) Acosta held a televised press conference to defend his and the USAO’s actions. Acosta stated that the Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office “was ready to allow Epstein to walk free with no jail time, nothing.” DOJ Report Alex Acosta
July 12, 2019. Alex Acosta resigns as Secretary of Labor.
August 9, 2019. Unsealed documents of Virginia Roberts implicate Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, Jean Luc-Brunel, and Marvin Minsky in crimes related to the trafficking network. SOURCE
August 10, 2019. According to a coroner, Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide. SOURCE Due to circumstantial evidence, hardly anyone believes it. My most likely theory is rendition by clone. Epstein and Robert Maxwell look too much alike to be coincidence. The circumstances of Robert Maxwell‘s death were extremely suspect as well. There is evidence of cloning by the US government in the 1980s in the book Trance: Formation of America. etc.
August 12, 2019. “Attorney General William Barr said Monday he learned of ‘serious irregularities’ at the Manhattan prison where accused child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein died Saturday. Barr vowed that the investigation will continue and warned that Epstein’s co-conspirators ‘should not rest easy.’” SOURCE
August 12, 2019. FBI and NYPD raid Little St. James Island. SOURCE
August 16, 2019. Adriana Ross cries when reporters ask her about Jeffrey Epstein. SOURCE
August 20, 2019. Katlyn Doe files lawsuit against the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. SOURCE
September 2019. A US District court dismisses the suit of Courtney Wild against the US government for violating the Crime Victims Rights Act because they said it was moot point now that Jeffrey Epstein was dead. US COURT OF APPEALS
October 09, 2019. Jennifer Araoz files suit against four women who once worked for Jeffrey Epstein. “The four women include Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime confidante; Lesley Groff, a former secretary; Cimberly Espinosa, a former executive assistant; and Rosalyn Fontanilla, a former maid who died in October 2016.” SOURCE
November 05, 2019. Reporter Amy Robach says ABC spiked her story on Jeffrey Epstein. SOURCE
November 19, 2019. “Earlier today Kathleen Hawk Sawyer testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill and revealed the Epstein saga was nowhere near being finished. FBI investigators are looking into whether a “criminal enterprise’ may have played a role” said Sawyer, who is the Bureau of Prisons’ director. “With a case this high profile, there has got to be either a major malfunction of the system or criminal enterprise at foot to allow this to happen. So…is the FBI looking at both?” asked South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsay Graham during the testimony. “The FBI is involved, and they are looking at criminal enterprise, yes” answered Sawyer.” SOURCE
December 24, 2019. Lawsuit filed against the estate of Jeffrey Epstein by Jane Doe #4. SOURCE.
January 20, 2020. The Virigin Islands sue the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. SOURCE
February 29, 2020. Representative Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, asks DOJ official if Jeffrey Epstein was an FBI asset. SOURCE
July 02, 2020. Ghislaine Maxwell arrested on charges of trafficking minors for sex. Charges were based on events 1994-1997. SOURCE
March 30, 2021. The DOJ files additional charges against Ghislaine Maxwell for trafficking minors for sex. Charges were based on events 2001-2004. SOURCE
April 15, 2021. US Court of Appeals rules against Courtney Wild in her CVRA lawsuit against the United States. US COURT OF APPEALS
TO BE CONTINUED
- OPR did not identify date that Marie Villafana took over investigation.
- Computers were held as leverage against VIPs by Epstein legal team.
- Krischer told OPR the grand jury was presented the “whole thing.” Miami Herald says they only saw information on one person. Grand jury issued subpoenas. OPR did not provide enough detail on grand jury proceedings, only Krischer’s few words.
Deceptive language: “As the investigation continued, Villafaña took various steps to acquire the computer equipment removed from Epstein’s Palm Beach residence.” Many irrelevant boring details are outlined in great detail in the report, but they will not itemize Villafana’s steps to acquire the computer equipment.
“Villafaña learned that the computer equipment was in the possession of a particular individual. After consulting the Department’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and Office of Enforcement Operations about the appropriate legal steps to obtain the computer equipment, Villafaña described her plan in an email to Menchel. She asked Menchel for any comments or concerns, but OPR did not find an email response from him, and Menchel told OPR that he did not recall Villafaña’s efforts to obtain the computer equipment.” WHEN did Villafana contact DCCIP? “Did not find an email response” – was there a deleted email response? Was it redacted or withheld somehow?