U.S. Department of.lustiet KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

Case File

efta-efta00224866DOJ Data Set 9Other

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

Date

Unknown

Source

DOJ Data Set 9

Reference

EFTA 00224866

Pages

Persons

Integrity

No Hash Available

Summary

Persons Referenced (2)

Marie Villafana

“...rfatiCe.c J Yttoli r.ityr I EFTA00224866 •• / V." KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP A. Marie Villafana August 18. 2008 Page 2 Once we come to an agreement on the following and you...”

U.S. Attorney

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure

Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AM. Pdau11.00( C1664000 Cf•nle, t41 4 (-t •1,1:46.4 Jay r lolkoontz. P C TO CIIISMet nWet.ily (=I 446 4670 litlkowilzaektinalid cam VIA FACSIMILE (561) 820-8777 scow t01klan0 cant August IR. 2008 Re: Jeffrey Epsicin lkar Marie: Fac,Anisle (212) 446.4100 I write in response to your letter dattxl August IS. 2008 regarding the civil restitution pinion of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreement- ). Thank you Air confirming our position that the December modification proposal is not part of the Agreement. As expressed by U.S. Attorney Acosta in his December 19.2007 letter. the unorthodox use of a civil restitution statute in a federal plea agreement. which resulted in state charges against Mr. Epstein. has caused several miscommunications with respect to the implementation of the terms of that Agreement. In order to avoid any further miscommunications and to ensure that the 18 U.S.C. * 2255 aspects of the Agnxmcnt are carried out in a proper manner. it would he useful to come to an agreement as to the implementation of the civil restitution portion of the Agreement. As we have previously stated. Mr. Epstein filly intends to abide by the terms of the Agreement. and we hope you appreciate that our efforts to resolve any misunderstandings between Mr. Epstein and the government about the terms of the Agreement are intended only to ensure that it is carried out fully and fairly. In an tram to avoid having either party unintentionally breach the Agreement. we suggest that steps be taken to clarify the meaning of paragraphs 7-I0. It would he extremely helpful to both sides to have an independent third party consider the Agreement and offer the final word on how certain clauses should be interpreted and satisfied. Because the government has already enlisted Judge Davis to select the attorney representative under the Agreement. we would be amenable to his serving in this role. In order to come to an agreement on the exact procedure by which the identified hulk iduals will obtain restitution. I am providing you with our thoughts on three issues below. EXHIBIT B-84 Hong Kong London Los Angolor. Mumch Son rfatiCe.c J Yttoli r.ityr I EFTA00224866 •• / V." KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP A. Marie Villafana August 18. 2008 Page 2 Once we come to an agreement on the following and you provide a complete and final list of identified individuals. it will be appropriate to notify them. First. I am concerned by it suggestion that you might want to increase the number of individuals on the government's list. I had expected the number to have become smaller, because when we spoke prior to sitting the agreement. you told me that the government already had a list, and we were informed thereafter that the September 24. 2007 list had been narrowed. Certainly. anyone who was not on the list prior to September 24. 2007 cannot permissibly be added to the list. Second. we will cooperate with the government tv reach to an agreement as to substance of the notification to be sent to the government's list of individuals. Based on the Agreement. the intimation contained in the notification should he limited to (1) the language provided in the Agreement dealing with civil restitution (paragraphs 7-10) and (2) the contact information of the selected attorney representative. We object to the inclusion of additional information about the investigation of Mr. F.pstein, the terms of the Agreement other than paragraphs 7-10. and the identity of other identified individuals. Third. as you are aware. the Addendum requires that "the parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her customary hourly rate for representing such victims subject to the provisions of Paragraph C. infra- We will certainly cooperate with the government to draft such a joint submission and would be pleased to submit draft language to you for such a joint submission. I look forward to working with you to resolve these matters. I believe we have a mutual • interest in moving past all of these issues so that the civil restitution aspects of the Agreement can be fulfilled. EFTA00224867 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Fax Transmittal Caugroup Center 153 East 53rd Street Please notify us immediately if any pages arc not received. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL. MAY BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED. MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION. AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE UNAUTHORIZED USE. DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT: (212) 446.4800. "'Jaz' Jay P. Lr:lkowilz August I S. 2008 212 446-6460 212 440-4970 Massago: EFTA00224868

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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 (

204p

House OversightUnknown

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.

House OversightLegal FilingNov 11, 2025

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,

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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

65p

House OversightUnknown

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.

DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01338175

80p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Donate More ways to support →

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.