403-19.pdf

GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT S Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 1 of 176 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 2 of 176 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. I ------------- DECLARATION OF A. MARIE VILLAFANA IN SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1. I, A. Marie Villafafia, do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of Florida. I graduated from the University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) in 1993. After serving as a judicial clerk to the Hon. David F. Levi in Sacramento, California, I was admitted to practice in California in 1995. I also am admitted to practice in all courts of the states of Minnesota and Florida, the Eighth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of Florida, the District of Minnesota, and the Northern District of California. My bar admission status in California and Minnesota is currently inactive. I am currently employed as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida and was so employed during all of the events described herein. 2. I am the Assistant United States Attorney who was assigned to the investigation of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 3 of 176 Jeffrey Epstein. For purposes ofl 8 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5), I was the "attorney for the Government," although, as discussed below, no federal criminal charges were ever filed and there was no "case," as that term is used in the statute. I have previously filed two Declarations (see DE14 and DE35). This Declaration repeats some of the information contained in the earlier Declarations for ease of reference. 3. The federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein was handled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). The federal investigation was initiated in 2006 at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD") into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein and his personal assistants had used facilities of interstate commerce to induce young girls between the ages of thirteen and seventeen to engage in prostitution, amongst other offenses. 4. Although the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("the Office") opened the matter to conduct an investigation and to evaluate a possible prosecution, the Office never accepted the matter for federal prosecution, that is, the Office never authorized the presentation of a proposed indictment to a federal grand jury or the filing of any federal charge in a criminal complaint or information, and no case was ever filed. 5. Throughout the investigation, the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist and I prepared and provided victim notification letters. (See Exs. E 1 & F). Letters to reported victims were prepared early in the investigation and subsequently delivered as each of those victims was contacted. The victim notification letters that were sent early in the investigation were sent to 1 Exhibits designated by a number are attached to this Declaration. Exhibits designated by a letter are attached to the Government's Response and Opposition to Petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 2 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 4 of 176 individuals who had been identified as potential victims of Epstein, but whom the investigative team had not yet interviewed and had not necessarily determined were in fact victims of a federal offense or came under the protection of the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"). For example, the U.S. Attorney's Office letters were hand-delivered by FBI agents to Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 on dates subsequent to the dates of the letters. At the time those letters were sent, determinations had not yet been made that Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 were in fact victims of a federal offense or came under the protections of the CVRA. Nonetheless, the investigative team and I adopted an approach of providing more notice and assistance to potential victims than the CVRA may have required, even before the circumstances of those individuals had been fully investigated and before any charging decisions had been made. My letters to Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 notified them of their rights under the CVRA, including the right to confer with me and the right to seek counsel with respect to their CVRA rights. (Id.). My letters also contained my direct dial telephone number, the direct dial telephone number of the case agent, Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, and the telephone number for the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime. (Id.). Both Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 also received letters from the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist, which were sent on January 10, 2008. (See Ex. J). Neither Jane Doe 1 nor Jane Doe 2 ever contacted me to discuss the investigation, potential charges or resolutions of the matter, or otherwise. If they had, I would have been happy to discuss the matter and provide their comments, concerns, or desires to my supenors. I never declined any victim's request to confer regarding any aspect of the investigation. 6. A subpoena was issued to Jane Doe 2 for testimony and documents in September, 2006. Within a few days, I was contacted by attorney James Eisenberg, who informed me that he 3 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 5 of 176 was representing Jane Doe 2. Mr. Eisenberg also informed me that Jane Doe 2 would not provide testimony or appear for a consensual interview unless the U.S. Attorney's Office obtained court- ordered use immunity for Jane Doe 2 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6001, et seq. See Ex. A. I had several oral and written communications with Mr. Eisenberg asking him if Jane Doe 2 would appear under the protection of a standard Kastigar letter, but he told me that Jane Doe 2 would only appear if statutory immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6001 was received. For example, in my letter of January 24, 2007, I confirmed my earlier conversation where Mr. Eisenberg had advised that Jane Doe 2 intended "to invoke the Fifth Amendment if questioned," and that she "was unwilling to speak to [ the investigative team] pursuant to a Kastigar letter." (See Ex. 1.) 7. In the same letter of January 24, 2007, I raised concerns regarding whether Mr. Eisenberg had a conflict of interest. (See id.) As noted in Jane Doe 2 's Declaration, Mr. Eisenberg's fees were paid by Jeffrey Epstein, the target of the investigation. In response, Mr. Eisenberg wrote the attached letter dated February 1, 2007. (See Ex. 2.) Mr. Eisenberg stated that it was the attitude of the U.S. Attorney's Office, in which the "office refuses to accept the fact that it is [ Jane Doe 2 's] decision not to cooperate with the government that ups