December 10, 2025 • 12 mins
In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government’s formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims’ Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA’s notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims’ rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government’s position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.
Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein’s victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims’ rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims’ advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña’s filing stood as the DOJ’s most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein’s victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims’ rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims’ advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña’s filing stood as the DOJ’s most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to take a
look at Marievilla Fauna's declaration when it comes to the
CVRA case number zero A Dash eight zero seven three
six Dash SIV, Dash, Mara, Matthewman, Jane Do one and
(00:22):
Jane Do two Petitioners verse, United States Respondent Declaration of
Marievilla Fauna in support of government's response and opposition to
petitioner's motion for partial summary judgment and cross motion for
some rey judgment. I, Marievilla Fauna, do hereby declare that
I am a member in good standing of the Bar
(00:42):
of the State of Florida. I graduated from the University
of California at Berkeley School of Law in ninety three.
After serving a judicial clerk to the Honorable David F.
Levi in Sacramento, California. I was admitted to practice in
California in ninety five. I am also admitted to practice
in all courts of the States of Minnesota and Florida,
(01:03):
the eighth, eleventh, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and
the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The District of Minnesota and the Northern District of California.
My barred mission 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
(01:23):
during all of the events described here in I am
the assistant United States Attorney who was assigned to investigation
of Jeffrey Epstein for purposes of US Code eighteen, Section
thirty seven seventy one A five. I was the attorney
for the government, although as discussed below, no federal criminal
charges wherever filed and there was no case as that
(01:44):
term is used in the statute. I have previously filed
two declarations, and this declaration repeats some of the information
contained in the earlier declarations. Four case reference. The federal
investigation at Jeffrey Epstein was handled by the FBI, and
the federal investigation was initiated in two thousand and six
at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department. In
(02:07):
delegations at 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. Although the U s Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of Florida opened the matter to conduct an
investigation and to evaluate a possible prosecution, the office never
(02:29):
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. Throughout the investigation, the FBI's Victim Witness Specialist
and I prepared and provided victim notification letters. Letters to
(02:53):
reported victims were prepared in 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 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
(03:16):
victims of a federal offense or came under the protection
of the CVRA. For example, the US Attorney's Office letters
were hand delivered by FBI agents to Jane do one
and Jane Do two on dates subsequent to the dates
of their letters. At the time those letters were sent,
determinations had not yet been made that Jane Do one
(03:37):
and Jane Do two were in fact victims of federal
offense or came under the protection 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 circumstances of those individuals had
been fully investigated and before any charging decision had been made.
(04:00):
My letters to Jane Do one and Jane Do two
notified them of their rights under the CVRA, including the
right to confer with me and the right to see
counsel with respect to their CVRA rights. My letters also
contained my direct dial telephone number and the direct dial
telephone number of the case agent, Nesbit Kirkandahl, and the
(04:21):
telephone number for the Justice Department's Office for Victims Crimes.
Both Jane Do one and Jane Do two also received
letters from the FBI's victim Witness specialists, which were sent
on January tenth, two thousand and eight. Neither Jane Do
one nor Jane do two ever contacted me to discuss
the investigation, potential charges, or resolution of the matter, or otherwise.
(04:43):
If they had, I would have been happy to discuss
the matter and provide their comments, concerns, or desires to
my superiors. I never declined any victim request to confer
regarding any aspect of the investigation. A subpoena was issued
to Jane Do two for testimony in Docum t MINS
in September two thousand and six. Within a few days,
I was contacted by Attorney James Eisenberg, who informed me
(05:07):
that he was representing Jane Doe number two. Mister Eisenberg
also informed me that Jane Doe two would not provide
testimony or appear for a consensual interview unless the US
Attorney's Office obtained court ordered use immunity for Jane Doe
two pursuant to US Code eighteen, Section six zero zero one.
I had several oral and written communications with mister Eisenberg
(05:30):
asking him if Jane Doe two would appear under the
protection of a standard cast of guard letter, but he
told me that Jane Do two would only appear if
statutory immunity pursuant to US Code eighteen, Section six thousand
and one was received. For example, in my letter of
January twenty fourth, two thousand and seven, I confirmed my
earlier conversation where mister Eisenberg had advised that Jane Doe
(05:53):
two intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment if questioned, and
that she was unwilling to speak to the investigative team
sue into a cast of guard letter. In the same
letter on January twenty fourth, two thousand and seven, I
raise concerns regarding whether mister Eisenberg had a conflict of
interest as noted in Jane Doe two's declaration, mister eisenberg
(06:14):
fees were paid by Jeffrey Epstein, the target of the investigation.
In response, mister Eisenberg wrote the attached letter dated February first,
two thousand and seven. Mister Eisenberg stated that it was
the attitude of the US Attorney's Office, in which the
office refuses to accept the fact that is Jane do
two's decision not to cooperate with a government that upsets her.
(06:36):
Mister Eisenberg also assured me that there is no conflict
of interest in his representation of Jane do two. In
this case, I have always been asked and always will
exercise independent judgment to follow my client's independent will. Despite
his express misgivings about the Palm Beach Police Department's handling
of its investigation, mister Eisenberg stated that one of the
(06:58):
above is directed at you personally. I want you to
repeat that you have always treated us with respect. In
light of mister Eisenberg's representations that there was no conflict
of interest, and in light of his clearest statements that
he represented Jane do two, I cannot directly contact or
confer with Jane Doe two without running a foul of
the Florida Bar Rules and us CO twenty eight Section
(07:21):
five point thirty B. I continue to converse with mister
Eisenberg about having Jane Doe two appear for a voluntary interview,
which continuously delayed the investigation to that end. On February fifth,
two thousand and seven, I provided mister Eisenberg with two
proposed cast of guard letters that I felt should assure
Jane do two that she was being interviewed only as
(07:42):
a witness and a potential victim. At Jane Doe two's request,
I also prepared office paperwork to obtain authorization for childcare
while Jane do two was interviewed on February twelfth, two
thousand and seven. After another conversation in which mister Eisenberg
reiterated Jane do twos in ten to invoke her Fifth
Amendment privilege and Jane DO two's refusal to testify without
(08:04):
six thousand and one immunity, mister Eisenberg provided, at my
request a letter detailing Jane DO two's concerns regarding testifying
without immunity. In that letter, mister Eisenberg reiterated that Jane
do two will refuse to voluntarily cooperate with the federal government.
Jane do two thereafter denied being involved in, or as
(08:25):
a victim of, any criminal activity, and made statements to
exonerate Jeffrey Epstein, including Epstein never touched mister Epstein in
a sexual way and mister Epstein never touched Jane do
two at all. At one point, mister Epstein did ask
Jane do two her age. Jane do two insisted she
was eighteen years old. Describing Jane do two's position, mister
(08:46):
Eisenberg wrote, we believe no crime was committed. Just to
interject here, Eisenberg was hired by Epstein to manipulate the
situation and turn it into what it was. Based upon
the profit letter provided by mister Eisenberg, in March of two,
one thousand and seven, I prepared a request for authorization
to apply for a compulsion order seeking immunity pursuing the
(09:07):
US Code eighteen, section six zero zero one through six
zero zero three for Jane DO two. On April thirteenth,
two thousand and seven, Bruce C. Schwartz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
approved the request on behalf of Aleis Fischer, Assistant Attorney General.
I then applied to the court for an order compelling
Jane Doe two's testimony. District Judge Middlebrooks granted the application
(09:31):
on April sixteenth, two thousand and seven. After learning of
Judge Middlebrooks order, mister Eisenberg asked whether Jane DO two
could appear for an interview rather than provide formal testimony,
pursuing to heur subpoena so that he could be present.
On April twenty fourth, two thousand and seven, Jane DO
two was interviewed. The interview was videotaped. During the interview,
(09:52):
Jane DO two again denied being involved in or a
victim of any criminal activity, and made statements meant to
exonerate Jeffrey Epstein. Jane do two also informed me that
the FBI agents who were present that she hoped nothing
happens to Epstein because he is an awesome man, and
that she believed it was a shame that he has
to go through this because he was an awesome guy
(10:14):
and he didn't do nothing wrong. Other than that interview,
I had no direct contact with Jane Doe two during
the course of the investigation. Jane do two never contacted
me at all, either directly or through mister Eisenberg, whether
seeking information, requesting to confer with me, or regarding the investigation,
charging decisions or the resolution of the matter, or complaining
(10:37):
that she was not being treated with fairness and respect.
In light of other evidence and witness statements, the investigative
team considered Jane do two's exculpatory statements to be false. Nonetheless,
those statements precluded us from including her as a victim
who would be referenced in any federal indictment. Despite this,
in light of the team's general approach to try and
(10:58):
go above and beyond in turn terms of caring for
the victims, I continued to treat her as a victim
in that Vein shortly after the non prosecution Agreement was signed,
I contacted mister Eisenberg to ask whether he still represents
Jane do two. Mister Eisenberg stated that he did. I
then told him that we would soon be making victim
notifications and as mister Eisenberg whether I could send the
(11:21):
notification directly to Jane do two or if it had
to be served through him. Mister Eisenberg instructed that any
victim notification should be sent to him, as I explained
in further detail below. After the NPA was signed, mister Epstein,
through his council, made several attempts to avoid having to
perform the obligations that he had undertaken in the NPA.
(11:43):
Several of those attacks alleged prosecutorial misconduct by me and
Epstein's attorneys used my efforts to provide a post NPA
signing victim notification to Jane do two as evidence of
that claim misconduct. In response to mister lefkowitz runeous allegations
against Jane Doe two and myself, on December thirteenth, two
(12:03):
thousand and seven, I sent a response to mister Lefkwitz,
defending myself and Jane Doe number two. All right, folks,
we're gonna wrap up right here with episode one. In
the next episode, we're gonna pick up where we left
off with the declaration of Marie Villa Fauna. All of
the information that goes with this episode can be found
in the description box.
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to take a
look at Marievilla Fauna's declaration when it comes to the
CVRA case number zero A Dash eight zero seven three
six Dash SIV, Dash, Mara, Matthewman, Jane Do one and
(00:22):
Jane Do two Petitioners verse, United States Respondent Declaration of
Marievilla Fauna in support of government's response and opposition to
petitioner's motion for partial summary judgment and cross motion for
some rey judgment. I, Marievilla Fauna, do hereby declare that
I am a member in good standing of the Bar
(00:42):
of the State of Florida. I graduated from the University
of California at Berkeley School of Law in ninety three.
After serving a judicial clerk to the Honorable David F.
Levi in Sacramento, California. I was admitted to practice in
California in ninety five. I am also admitted to practice
in all courts of the States of Minnesota and Florida,
(01:03):
the eighth, eleventh, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and
the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The District of Minnesota and the Northern District of California.
My barred mission 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
(01:23):
during all of the events described here in I am
the assistant United States Attorney who was assigned to investigation
of Jeffrey Epstein for purposes of US Code eighteen, Section
thirty seven seventy one A five. I was the attorney
for the government, although as discussed below, no federal criminal
charges wherever filed and there was no case as that
(01:44):
term is used in the statute. I have previously filed
two declarations, and this declaration repeats some of the information
contained in the earlier declarations. Four case reference. The federal
investigation at Jeffrey Epstein was handled by the FBI, and
the federal investigation was initiated in two thousand and six
at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department. In
(02:07):
delegations at 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. Although the U s Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of Florida opened the matter to conduct an
investigation and to evaluate a possible prosecution, the office never
(02:29):
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. Throughout the investigation, the FBI's Victim Witness Specialist
and I prepared and provided victim notification letters. Letters to
(02:53):
reported victims were prepared in 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 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
(03:16):
victims of a federal offense or came under the protection
of the CVRA. For example, the US Attorney's Office letters
were hand delivered by FBI agents to Jane do one
and Jane Do two on dates subsequent to the dates
of their letters. At the time those letters were sent,
determinations had not yet been made that Jane Do one
(03:37):
and Jane Do two were in fact victims of federal
offense or came under the protection 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 circumstances of those individuals had
been fully investigated and before any charging decision had been made.
(04:00):
My letters to Jane Do one and Jane Do two
notified them of their rights under the CVRA, including the
right to confer with me and the right to see
counsel with respect to their CVRA rights. My letters also
contained my direct dial telephone number and the direct dial
telephone number of the case agent, Nesbit Kirkandahl, and the
(04:21):
telephone number for the Justice Department's Office for Victims Crimes.
Both Jane Do one and Jane Do two also received
letters from the FBI's victim Witness specialists, which were sent
on January tenth, two thousand and eight. Neither Jane Do
one nor Jane do two ever contacted me to discuss
the investigation, potential charges, or resolution of the matter, or otherwise.
(04:43):
If they had, I would have been happy to discuss
the matter and provide their comments, concerns, or desires to
my superiors. I never declined any victim request to confer
regarding any aspect of the investigation. A subpoena was issued
to Jane Do two for testimony in Docum t MINS
in September two thousand and six. Within a few days,
I was contacted by Attorney James Eisenberg, who informed me
(05:07):
that he was representing Jane Doe number two. Mister Eisenberg
also informed me that Jane Doe two would not provide
testimony or appear for a consensual interview unless the US
Attorney's Office obtained court ordered use immunity for Jane Doe
two pursuant to US Code eighteen, Section six zero zero one.
I had several oral and written communications with mister Eisenberg
(05:30):
asking him if Jane Doe two would appear under the
protection of a standard cast of guard letter, but he
told me that Jane Do two would only appear if
statutory immunity pursuant to US Code eighteen, Section six thousand
and one was received. For example, in my letter of
January twenty fourth, two thousand and seven, I confirmed my
earlier conversation where mister Eisenberg had advised that Jane Doe
(05:53):
two intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment if questioned, and
that she was unwilling to speak to the investigative team
sue into a cast of guard letter. In the same
letter on January twenty fourth, two thousand and seven, I
raise concerns regarding whether mister Eisenberg had a conflict of
interest as noted in Jane Doe two's declaration, mister eisenberg
(06:14):
fees were paid by Jeffrey Epstein, the target of the investigation.
In response, mister Eisenberg wrote the attached letter dated February first,
two thousand and seven. Mister Eisenberg stated that it was
the attitude of the US Attorney's Office, in which the
office refuses to accept the fact that is Jane do
two's decision not to cooperate with a government that upsets her.
(06:36):
Mister Eisenberg also assured me that there is no conflict
of interest in his representation of Jane do two. In
this case, I have always been asked and always will
exercise independent judgment to follow my client's independent will. Despite
his express misgivings about the Palm Beach Police Department's handling
of its investigation, mister Eisenberg stated that one of the
(06:58):
above is directed at you personally. I want you to
repeat that you have always treated us with respect. In
light of mister Eisenberg's representations that there was no conflict
of interest, and in light of his clearest statements that
he represented Jane do two, I cannot directly contact or
confer with Jane Doe two without running a foul of
the Florida Bar Rules and us CO twenty eight Section
(07:21):
five point thirty B. I continue to converse with mister
Eisenberg about having Jane Doe two appear for a voluntary interview,
which continuously delayed the investigation to that end. On February fifth,
two thousand and seven, I provided mister Eisenberg with two
proposed cast of guard letters that I felt should assure
Jane do two that she was being interviewed only as
(07:42):
a witness and a potential victim. At Jane Doe two's request,
I also prepared office paperwork to obtain authorization for childcare
while Jane do two was interviewed on February twelfth, two
thousand and seven. After another conversation in which mister Eisenberg
reiterated Jane do twos in ten to invoke her Fifth
Amendment privilege and Jane DO two's refusal to testify without
(08:04):
six thousand and one immunity, mister Eisenberg provided, at my
request a letter detailing Jane DO two's concerns regarding testifying
without immunity. In that letter, mister Eisenberg reiterated that Jane
do two will refuse to voluntarily cooperate with the federal government.
Jane do two thereafter denied being involved in, or as
(08:25):
a victim of, any criminal activity, and made statements to
exonerate Jeffrey Epstein, including Epstein never touched mister Epstein in
a sexual way and mister Epstein never touched Jane do
two at all. At one point, mister Epstein did ask
Jane do two her age. Jane do two insisted she
was eighteen years old. Describing Jane do two's position, mister
(08:46):
Eisenberg wrote, we believe no crime was committed. Just to
interject here, Eisenberg was hired by Epstein to manipulate the
situation and turn it into what it was. Based upon
the profit letter provided by mister Eisenberg, in March of two,
one thousand and seven, I prepared a request for authorization
to apply for a compulsion order seeking immunity pursuing the
(09:07):
US Code eighteen, section six zero zero one through six
zero zero three for Jane DO two. On April thirteenth,
two thousand and seven, Bruce C. Schwartz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
approved the request on behalf of Aleis Fischer, Assistant Attorney General.
I then applied to the court for an order compelling
Jane Doe two's testimony. District Judge Middlebrooks granted the application
(09:31):
on April sixteenth, two thousand and seven. After learning of
Judge Middlebrooks order, mister Eisenberg asked whether Jane DO two
could appear for an interview rather than provide formal testimony,
pursuing to heur subpoena so that he could be present.
On April twenty fourth, two thousand and seven, Jane DO
two was interviewed. The interview was videotaped. During the interview,
(09:52):
Jane DO two again denied being involved in or a
victim of any criminal activity, and made statements meant to
exonerate Jeffrey Epstein. Jane do two also informed me that
the FBI agents who were present that she hoped nothing
happens to Epstein because he is an awesome man, and
that she believed it was a shame that he has
to go through this because he was an awesome guy
(10:14):
and he didn't do nothing wrong. Other than that interview,
I had no direct contact with Jane Doe two during
the course of the investigation. Jane do two never contacted
me at all, either directly or through mister Eisenberg, whether
seeking information, requesting to confer with me, or regarding the investigation,
charging decisions or the resolution of the matter, or complaining
(10:37):
that she was not being treated with fairness and respect.
In light of other evidence and witness statements, the investigative
team considered Jane do two's exculpatory statements to be false. Nonetheless,
those statements precluded us from including her as a victim
who would be referenced in any federal indictment. Despite this,
in light of the team's general approach to try and
(10:58):
go above and beyond in turn terms of caring for
the victims, I continued to treat her as a victim
in that Vein shortly after the non prosecution Agreement was signed,
I contacted mister Eisenberg to ask whether he still represents
Jane do two. Mister Eisenberg stated that he did. I
then told him that we would soon be making victim
notifications and as mister Eisenberg whether I could send the
(11:21):
notification directly to Jane do two or if it had
to be served through him. Mister Eisenberg instructed that any
victim notification should be sent to him, as I explained
in further detail below. After the NPA was signed, mister Epstein,
through his council, made several attempts to avoid having to
perform the obligations that he had undertaken in the NPA.
(11:43):
Several of those attacks alleged prosecutorial misconduct by me and
Epstein's attorneys used my efforts to provide a post NPA
signing victim notification to Jane do two as evidence of
that claim misconduct. In response to mister lefkowitz runeous allegations
against Jane Doe two and myself, on December thirteenth, two
(12:03):
thousand and seven, I sent a response to mister Lefkwitz,
defending myself and Jane Doe number two. All right, folks,
we're gonna wrap up right here with episode one. In
the next episode, we're gonna pick up where we left
off with the declaration of Marie Villa Fauna. All of
the information that goes with this episode can be found
in the description box.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.