EFTA00191195 Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)
From:Villafana, Ann Marie C.(USAFLS)
Sent:Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:03 PM
To:Sanchez, Eduardo(USAFLS)
Cc:Lee, Dexter(USAFLS)
Subject:RE: Responses to RFAs
Tracking:RecipientRead
Sanchez, Eduardo(USAFLS)Read:7/16/2013 4:17PM
Lee,Dexter(USAFLS)Read:7/16/2013 5:49PM
Hi Ed – There are some issues that I think you want to include in the RFA’s: Overall – you need to change “the government” to “the USAO” No. 2(a): My contact with JD#2`s attorney, Jim Eisenberg, to ask him whether we should send the letter to him or directly to JD#2, is what started the firestorm regarding victim notifications. I think that is significant because she is one of the petitioners in this case. No. 2(c): Remove “and her then-attorney” No. 2(d): The USAO denies that the language in its 2006 and 2007 victim notification letters to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were affected in any way by contact with counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The USAO also denies that the language in the FBI’s letters to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were affected in any way by contact with counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The language of the July 9, 2008 letter to Jane Doe #1 in care of Bradley Edwards was altered after receiving objections to victim notifications from counsel for Jeffrey Epstein and reevaluation of the victim notification obligations by the USAO. No. 2(e): You need to make clear that Jane Doe #2 was never officially notified about the NPA because it was determined that she was not a person whom the USAO was prepared to name in an indictment. No. 7: You need to make clear that the FBI was still actively investigating the case as of that time, including interviewing additional victims. We did grand jury appearances in March and April 2008. No. 9(e): You can make clear that the FBI notified Jane Doe #1 at the request of the USAO because they met with her at my request. You again need to reiterate that Jane Doe #2 was never officially notified about the NPA because it was determined that she was not a person whom the USAO was prepared to name in an indictment due to her videotaped denial that she was sexually abused by JE, that he was an “awesome man” and that she would like to marry him. No. 11: Do you think that your answer waives the attorney-client/work product/deliberative process privilege? Also, you have deleted the fact that the November 2007 letters didn’t go out because of the appeal to Washington. No. 13(a): I might change to say "although the USAO had notified Jane Doe #1, through FBI agents, of the existence of an agreement and had summarized its essential terms, . . ." 1 EFTA00191196 No. 13(b): I recommend adding: During interviews with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 prior to entering into the Non-Prosecution Agreement, both were asked their opinions about prosecution by an “attorney for the government” and Jane Doe #1 was asked about her willingness to serve as a witness at trial by an “attorney for the government.” Both were provided with contact information for an “attorney for the government” and invited to contact that attorney at any time. At no time prior to the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement or Jeffrey Epstein’s June 30, 2008 guilty plea did Jane Doe #1 or Jane Doe #2 ask to confer with an attorney for the government. No. 13(c): You may want to say something about the USAO`s knowledge that JD#2 was represented by counsel paid for by Epstein. No. 13(d): No, other than the confidentiality provision that appears in the agreement, there was nothing specifically aimed at talking to the victims. No. 16 - Wait until I finish. I need to go back and double-check. Just keep this highlighted for now. No. 23 – Do you want to add something about – “provided that Epstein does not breach the agreement” No. 26 – Do you want to add something about the information being covered by other privileges? (investigative privilege)? Thank you for all of your help with these! A. Marie Villafaña Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ann.marie.c.villafana@usdoj.gov 561-209-1047
From:Sanchez, Eduardo(USAFLS)
Sent:Monday, July 15,2013 7:59 PM
To:Villafana, Ann Marie C.(USAFLS); Lee,Dexter(USAFLS)
Subject:RE: Responses to RFAs
Attached are my suggested edits and thoughts.
From:Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2013 9:56 PM
To:Lee, Dexter (USAFLS); Sanchez, Eduardo (USAFLS)
Subject:Responses to RFAs
Hi Dexter and Ed – Here is my stab at a response. There are a number that I cannot answer. 2 EFTA00191197 Isn't the only real factual issue whether or not we conferred with the victims PRIOR TO SIGNING the NPA? The closest that they come to asking that is 13(b) and even that isn’t quite right. Should we suggest that they send a revised RFA asking simply: "An attorney for the government did not confer with Jane Doe #1 or Jane Doe #2 prior to entering into the NPA." << File: Response to Requests for Admissions.docx >> A. Marie Villafaña Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ann.marie.c.villafana@usdoj.gov 561-209-1047 3 EFTA00191198