EFTA01660038

CM/ECF - Live Database

CM/ECF - Live Database r Page 1 of 3 U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80736-KA M Doe'. United States of America Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Cause: no cause specified Date Filed: 07/07/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant LRJ Date Filed # Docket Text 07/07/2008 1 EMERGENCY PETITION for Victim's Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Act 18 USC 3771 against United States of America Filing fee $ 350. Receipt#: 724403, filed by Jane Doe. (rb) (Entered: 07/07/2008) 07/07/2008 2 CERTIFICATE OF EMERGENCY by Jane Doe re 1 Complaint (rb) (Entered: 07/07/2008) 07/07/2008 3 ORDER requiring U.S. Attorney to respond to 1 Complaint filed by Jane Doe by 5:00 p.m. on 7/9/08. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/7/08. (ir) (Entered: 07/07/2008) 07/09/2008 4 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Dexter Lee on behalf of United States of America (

Alleged Conflict of Interest and Attorney Selection Manipulation in Epstein Deferred Prosecution Agreement

Alleged Conflict of Interest and Attorney Selection Manipulation in Epstein Deferred Prosecution Agreement The passage reveals potential misconduct involving a U.S. Attorney (AUSA Marie Villafana) who may have used personal relationships to influence attorney selection for alleged victims, and suggests the SDFL (likely a federal office) altered its process after being exposed. While it names specific individuals and a procedural abuse, the claims are not yet corroborated and lack concrete financial data, limiting the score to strong but not blockbuster. Key insights: AUSA Marie Villafana allegedly recommended attorney Humberto Ocariz, who is linked to her live‑in boyfriend and former roommate.; The recommendation was presented as coming from a “good friend” in the Appellate Division, masking the personal connection.; The SDFL initially claimed unilateral authority to assign attorney selection, but evidence suggests the change was made after Epstein exposed the conflict.

U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta Extends Deadline for CEOS Agreement Compliance

The passage is a routine procedural notice from a U.S. Attorney extending a deadline. It contains no allegations, financial details, or controversial actions involving high‑level officials, making it Letter dated May 19, 2008 from R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney. References a prior email sent on February 25, 2008 outlining a compliance timetable. Deadline extended to close of business Monday,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CI V-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE # I and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' FIRST REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT The United States (hereinafter the "government") hereby responds to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions to the Government Regarding Questions Relevant to Their Pending Action Concerning the Crime Victims Rights Act (hereinafter the "Request for Admissions"), and states as follows:' I. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. I. The government's res

Attorney‑Generated Oversight Memo Accuses DOJ Prosecutors of Misconduct, Conflict of Interest, and Political Motives in Jeffrey Epstein Federal Case

Attorney‑Generated Oversight Memo Accuses DOJ Prosecutors of Misconduct, Conflict of Interest, and Political Motives in Jeffrey Epstein Federal Case The document provides a detailed, contemporaneous account of alleged DOJ misconduct—including unauthorized subpoenas, misrepresentations to the court, undisclosed financial incentives to witnesses, ex‑parte communications, and leaks to the press—while naming senior DOJ officials (Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Marie Villafana and Jeffrey Sloman) and linking the case to former President Bill Clinton’s notoriety. These allegations, if substantiated, could expose abuse of prosecutorial discretion, potential violations of DOJ ethics rules, and political influence, making it a strong investigative lead. However, much of the material is defensive in nature and repeats known procedural complaints, limiting its novelty and concrete evidentiary hooks. Key insights: Alleged illegal re‑issuance of a grand‑jury subpoena after a Non‑Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed (July 1 2008 subpoena).; Claims that AUSA Villafana disclosed confidential case details to the New York Times and leaked information to reporter Landon Thomas.; Accusations that Villafana attempted to appoint a personal friend of her live‑in boyfriend as attorney‑representative for victims, suggesting a conflict of interest.

EFTA01338175