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 pick up
where he left off with Marieville Fauna and traffied David
in regards to the CVRA. During the course of the
suit filed by Jane do one and Jane do two,
the petitioners have alleged that the case agents, the US
(00:20):
Attorney's Office, and I personally committed acts that violated their
rights under the CVRA. They have pointed to various pieces
of correspondence with counsel for Epstein to suggest that the
negotiations were not at arm's length or that certain things
were done inappropriately in order to keep the victims from
finding out about the NPA. Their interpretations and assertions are incorrect.
(00:45):
In the summer of two thousand and seven, Jeffrey Epstein,
through his attorneys in the US Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of Florida, entered into negotiations to resolve the investigation.
Prior to that, Epstein's attorneys had made several attempts to
convince the office to discontinue its investigation and not pursue
any possible federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. These attempts were rejected.
(01:09):
At that time, mister Epstein had already been charged by
the State of Florida with solicitation of prostitution and violation
of Florida's Statute Section seven ninety six dot seven. Mister
Epstein's attorneys sought a global resolution for that matter. The
Office instructed me to engage in negotiation to reach an
agreement with Epstein to defer federal prosecution in favor of
(01:31):
prosecution by the State of Florida so long as certain
basic preconditions were met. Epstein would have to serve a
jail sentence for two years later reduced to eighteen months.
Epstein would have to register as a sex offender, and
Epstein would have to accept liability to the victims identified
in the federal investigation for damages in lieu of the
restitution that would have been mandatory if Epstein had been
(01:54):
convicted of the federal offenses under investigation. Prior to the
Office making its decision to direct me to engage in
negotiation with Epstein's counsel, I discussed the strength and weaknesses
of the case with members of the Office management and
inform them that most of the victims had expressed significant
concerns about having their identities disclosed. While I was not
(02:16):
part of the final decision making at the office that
arrived at the two year sentence requirement, I was part
of the discussions regarding sex offender registration and the restitution provision.
It's my understanding from these and other discussions at these
factors that is the various strengths and weaknesses of the
case and the various competing interests of the many different victims,
(02:38):
including the privacy concerns expressed by many, together with the
office desire to obtain guaranteed sentence of incarceration for Epstein,
the equivalent of uncontested restitution for the victims, and guaranteed
sexual offender registration by Epstein to help protect other miners
throughout the country in the future were among the factors
(02:58):
that informed the offices acrestionary decision to negotiate a resolution
of the matter and ultimately enter into the NPA after
the fact. Petitioners are critical of the NPA's terms. They
have alleged that Epstein would easily have been convicted and
that all of the victims were eager to participate in
a full fledged federal prosecution. Alternatively, they have suggested that
(03:20):
a successful federal prosecution could have been mounted based solely
on Epstein's actions with Jane do one and Jane do two.
As the prosecutor who handled the investigation, I can say
that these contentions overlook the facts that existed at the
time the NPA was negotiated. First, as set out above,
Jane Do two clearly stated her opposition to assisting the investigation,
(03:44):
much less a prosecution. She was not alone. As noted
in Special Agent Kirkandahl's declaration, many victims expressed reservations about
assisting in the investigation. For example, Special Agent Timothy Slater
described how one victim told them she did not want
to be bothered again. She had moved away to distance
herself from the situation, and she wanted to let it
(04:05):
be in the past. Similarly, the person whom petitioners referred
to as Jane dol five also had been approached by
the investigative team in two thousand and seven, but refused
to speak with them. Regardless of the perceived strength of
the corroborating evidence, it was and remains my professional opinion
as an experienced prosecutor that a successful prosecution would have
(04:27):
required convincing all of the identified victims to come forward
and speak publicly at trial, knowing that they would face
public scrutiny and withering cross examination. Well, maybe, just maybe,
to interject here, you shouldn't have had Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers
defending them too. That might have helped out a little bit. No,
using my best efforts to accord all of the victims
(04:48):
their rights to be treated with fairness and with respect
for their dignity and privacy, and in the exercise of
my prosecutorial discretion, I believed and still believed that a
negotiated resolution of the matter was in the best interest
of the office and the victims as a whole. The
Office also reached the same conclusion. Second, the suggestion that
(05:09):
a successful prosecution could have been mounted naming only Jane
Doe one and Jane Doe two as victims is overly
optimistic at best. The investigative team and I worked tirelessly
to put together the evidence necessary to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Epstein committed federal offenses. We recognized how
difficult a trial would be, and that a successful case
(05:30):
could only be made of a jury heard from a
long series of credible victims who did not know each
other to avoid an allegation of collusion, and who had
all been subjected to the same treatment at Epstein's hands.
A case involving just two victims who knew each other,
including one who had previously stated on videotape that she
never engaged in sexual contact with Epstein, would never have
(05:51):
been charged to the federal case, much less resulted in
a conviction. Negotiations to resolve the Epstein matter were difficult,
and it was not clear that they would be successfully completed.
If Epstein did not enter an agreement with the office,
then the office needed to be in the best position
it could be to charge in convictim. Accordingly, I did
(06:12):
not want to share with victims at the office was
attempting to secure for them the ability to obtain monetary
compensation for the harm they had suffered. I was aware
that if disclosed that and the negotiations fell through, Epstein's
counsel would impeach the victims and my credibility by asserting
that I had told victims they could receive money for
(06:32):
implicating Epstein. In fact, Epstein's attorneys made exactly that claim.
And a deposition of one of the victims. Attorney Michael ten,
who represented Epstein, asked one of the identified victims the
following questions. Ten, now, tell me about when the federal
prosecutor has told you about getting reimbursed. Answer, I have
(06:52):
no idea what you're talking about. Ten, tell me about
when the federal prosecutors spoke to you about getting money
you feel you're entitled to from mister Epstein. Answer, I
don't know what you're talking about. Question by TN. Do
you know Marievill Lafauna? Answer no. Question did you ever
meet with any federal prosecutors? Answer? I think yeah, I
(07:13):
think there were. I think there were like FBI TN.
Uh huh did you meet with federal prosecutors? Answer? They
came to my house one time? Ten? When did they
come to your house? Answer? Very long ago? TN? Was
it the year two thousand and eight? Answer it was
not this year? No, TN, was it two thousand and seven?
Answer I'd have to say at least two years or
(07:34):
a year ago. Yeah, so it would be two thousand
and seven, two thousand and six, but it was a
while ago. TN. So if I say the name Marievia Lafauna,
you don't know who that is? Answer no, sir ten.
How many women and how many men came to your house?
Answer I want to say two ladies and two guys. Ten.
Did someone named Jeffrey Sloman come to your house? Answer
(07:55):
I don't know name, Sir tn. Do you know who
Jeffrey Sloman is? Answer no, sir ten. And you say
you don't know who Jeffrey Sloman is, Answer no, sir ten.
Does a refresher recollection that he's the number two prosecutor
at the US Attorney's Office? Answer no, question that he
is Marie Villafana's boss, answer no. Question. Did you meet
(08:17):
with an agent named Nesbit Kirkandaal a woman? Answer I
don't know. Question did miss Kirkandahl speak to you about
getting reimbursed from mister Epstein? Answer I've never had a
discussion with anyone about getting reimbursed from mister Epstein. Ten.
And we've learned many of the girls, some of whom
are as old as twenty three, were told by the
(08:39):
government that they would get money at the end of
the criminal prosecution. Does that sound familiar to you? Answer no, sir, Well,
I knew that none of the special agents or I
had discussed lawsuits or even restitution with any of the
victims during any of their interviews, and that the first
assistant US Attorney, Sloman, had never met any of the victims.
This was exactly the type of ross examination that I
(09:01):
anticipated Epstein's attorneys would try a trial the office, and
I concluded that opening up the possibility for such impeachment
would be detrimental to the prosecution of Epstein if a
negotiated resolution failed and Epstein were thereafter to be criminally charged.
As noted above, the negotiations were difficult, and at times
(09:21):
I urged the office to break off negotiations when I
felt Epstein's attorneys were proceeding in bad faith. Despite my reservations,
I attempted to conduct the negotiations professionally and cordially. Petitioners
in this case have attempted to construce some of my
communications to suggest that I was overly friendly with Epstein's
counsel to the detriment of the victims, or that I
(09:44):
was taking steps to undercut the victim's ability to be
present at any change of plea. These allegations are erroneous.
I was simply being professional and cordial with opposing counsel.
For example, I'm chided for an email regarding researching misdemeanor charges,
but as noted above, I was instructed to construct a
plea to federal or state offenses that resulted in a
(10:06):
sentence of two years later reduced eighteen months. This required
me to find a relevant charge with the agreed upon
statutory maximum, and then determine whether the facts developed in
the investigation fit that charge. I was unable to find
a relevant federal charge that had a statutory maximum of
two years and that required me to research the possibility
(10:27):
of stacking two federal misdemeanor charges. The petitioners also suggest
that I attempted to contrive to establish jurisdiction away from
the location where the crimes actually occurred and away from
where the victims actually lived, so as to avoid the
public finding out about anything. This is also false. By
the time of that email, there was already intense press
(10:49):
coverage of the case, including efforts to publicly identify victims,
as noted above and in the declaration of Special Agent Kirkanhal,
and even in the letters from Jane do Twos counsel.
The victims who have been interviewed in the federal investigation
were most concerned about keeping their identity secret. The possibility
of press coverage was a strong deterrent to that participation
(11:11):
in the investigation and possible prosecution. My reason for recommending
filing charges in Miami was to protect the privacy interests
of the victims in the case by allowing them the
opportunity to attend court proceedings, by definition, proceedings open to
the public, with a reduced chance that their identities would
be compromised. The FBI and the U. S. Attorney's Office
(11:34):
regularly transport victims from their homes to court proceedings, and
the same would have occurred if federal charges against Epstein
were filed in Miami. Similarly, with regard to the selection
of attorney representatives for the victims, I recommend two Miami
attorneys who I know to have reputations for being tenacious, skillful,
and committed to protecting their clients rather than burnishing their
(11:57):
reputations in the press. Although I understood that any civil
suits that were filed would be publicly available, in light
of stated desire of most victims to remain anonymous, I
did not believe that any attorney representative who actively sought
press coverage would be best suited to represent the victims
in this case and protect their privacy interests. All right, folks,
(12:19):
we're going to wrap up right here, and in the
next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up
where we left off. 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 pick up
where he left off with Marieville Fauna and traffied David
in regards to the CVRA. During the course of the
suit filed by Jane do one and Jane do two,
the petitioners have alleged that the case agents, the US
(00:20):
Attorney's Office, and I personally committed acts that violated their
rights under the CVRA. They have pointed to various pieces
of correspondence with counsel for Epstein to suggest that the
negotiations were not at arm's length or that certain things
were done inappropriately in order to keep the victims from
finding out about the NPA. Their interpretations and assertions are incorrect.
(00:45):
In the summer of two thousand and seven, Jeffrey Epstein,
through his attorneys in the US Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of Florida, entered into negotiations to resolve the investigation.
Prior to that, Epstein's attorneys had made several attempts to
convince the office to discontinue its investigation and not pursue
any possible federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. These attempts were rejected.
(01:09):
At that time, mister Epstein had already been charged by
the State of Florida with solicitation of prostitution and violation
of Florida's Statute Section seven ninety six dot seven. Mister
Epstein's attorneys sought a global resolution for that matter. The
Office instructed me to engage in negotiation to reach an
agreement with Epstein to defer federal prosecution in favor of
(01:31):
prosecution by the State of Florida so long as certain
basic preconditions were met. Epstein would have to serve a
jail sentence for two years later reduced to eighteen months.
Epstein would have to register as a sex offender, and
Epstein would have to accept liability to the victims identified
in the federal investigation for damages in lieu of the
restitution that would have been mandatory if Epstein had been
(01:54):
convicted of the federal offenses under investigation. Prior to the
Office making its decision to direct me to engage in
negotiation with Epstein's counsel, I discussed the strength and weaknesses
of the case with members of the Office management and
inform them that most of the victims had expressed significant
concerns about having their identities disclosed. While I was not
(02:16):
part of the final decision making at the office that
arrived at the two year sentence requirement, I was part
of the discussions regarding sex offender registration and the restitution provision.
It's my understanding from these and other discussions at these
factors that is the various strengths and weaknesses of the
case and the various competing interests of the many different victims,
(02:38):
including the privacy concerns expressed by many, together with the
office desire to obtain guaranteed sentence of incarceration for Epstein,
the equivalent of uncontested restitution for the victims, and guaranteed
sexual offender registration by Epstein to help protect other miners
throughout the country in the future were among the factors
(02:58):
that informed the offices acrestionary decision to negotiate a resolution
of the matter and ultimately enter into the NPA after
the fact. Petitioners are critical of the NPA's terms. They
have alleged that Epstein would easily have been convicted and
that all of the victims were eager to participate in
a full fledged federal prosecution. Alternatively, they have suggested that
(03:20):
a successful federal prosecution could have been mounted based solely
on Epstein's actions with Jane do one and Jane do two.
As the prosecutor who handled the investigation, I can say
that these contentions overlook the facts that existed at the
time the NPA was negotiated. First, as set out above,
Jane Do two clearly stated her opposition to assisting the investigation,
(03:44):
much less a prosecution. She was not alone. As noted
in Special Agent Kirkandahl's declaration, many victims expressed reservations about
assisting in the investigation. For example, Special Agent Timothy Slater
described how one victim told them she did not want
to be bothered again. She had moved away to distance
herself from the situation, and she wanted to let it
(04:05):
be in the past. Similarly, the person whom petitioners referred
to as Jane dol five also had been approached by
the investigative team in two thousand and seven, but refused
to speak with them. Regardless of the perceived strength of
the corroborating evidence, it was and remains my professional opinion
as an experienced prosecutor that a successful prosecution would have
(04:27):
required convincing all of the identified victims to come forward
and speak publicly at trial, knowing that they would face
public scrutiny and withering cross examination. Well, maybe, just maybe,
to interject here, you shouldn't have had Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers
defending them too. That might have helped out a little bit. No,
using my best efforts to accord all of the victims
(04:48):
their rights to be treated with fairness and with respect
for their dignity and privacy, and in the exercise of
my prosecutorial discretion, I believed and still believed that a
negotiated resolution of the matter was in the best interest
of the office and the victims as a whole. The
Office also reached the same conclusion. Second, the suggestion that
(05:09):
a successful prosecution could have been mounted naming only Jane
Doe one and Jane Doe two as victims is overly
optimistic at best. The investigative team and I worked tirelessly
to put together the evidence necessary to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Epstein committed federal offenses. We recognized how
difficult a trial would be, and that a successful case
(05:30):
could only be made of a jury heard from a
long series of credible victims who did not know each
other to avoid an allegation of collusion, and who had
all been subjected to the same treatment at Epstein's hands.
A case involving just two victims who knew each other,
including one who had previously stated on videotape that she
never engaged in sexual contact with Epstein, would never have
(05:51):
been charged to the federal case, much less resulted in
a conviction. Negotiations to resolve the Epstein matter were difficult,
and it was not clear that they would be successfully completed.
If Epstein did not enter an agreement with the office,
then the office needed to be in the best position
it could be to charge in convictim. Accordingly, I did
(06:12):
not want to share with victims at the office was
attempting to secure for them the ability to obtain monetary
compensation for the harm they had suffered. I was aware
that if disclosed that and the negotiations fell through, Epstein's
counsel would impeach the victims and my credibility by asserting
that I had told victims they could receive money for
(06:32):
implicating Epstein. In fact, Epstein's attorneys made exactly that claim.
And a deposition of one of the victims. Attorney Michael ten,
who represented Epstein, asked one of the identified victims the
following questions. Ten, now, tell me about when the federal
prosecutor has told you about getting reimbursed. Answer, I have
(06:52):
no idea what you're talking about. Ten, tell me about
when the federal prosecutors spoke to you about getting money
you feel you're entitled to from mister Epstein. Answer, I
don't know what you're talking about. Question by TN. Do
you know Marievill Lafauna? Answer no. Question did you ever
meet with any federal prosecutors? Answer? I think yeah, I
(07:13):
think there were. I think there were like FBI TN.
Uh huh did you meet with federal prosecutors? Answer? They
came to my house one time? Ten? When did they
come to your house? Answer? Very long ago? TN? Was
it the year two thousand and eight? Answer it was
not this year? No, TN, was it two thousand and seven?
Answer I'd have to say at least two years or
(07:34):
a year ago. Yeah, so it would be two thousand
and seven, two thousand and six, but it was a
while ago. TN. So if I say the name Marievia Lafauna,
you don't know who that is? Answer no, sir ten.
How many women and how many men came to your house?
Answer I want to say two ladies and two guys. Ten.
Did someone named Jeffrey Sloman come to your house? Answer
(07:55):
I don't know name, Sir tn. Do you know who
Jeffrey Sloman is? Answer no, sir ten. And you say
you don't know who Jeffrey Sloman is, Answer no, sir ten.
Does a refresher recollection that he's the number two prosecutor
at the US Attorney's Office? Answer no, question that he
is Marie Villafana's boss, answer no. Question. Did you meet
(08:17):
with an agent named Nesbit Kirkandaal a woman? Answer I
don't know. Question did miss Kirkandahl speak to you about
getting reimbursed from mister Epstein? Answer I've never had a
discussion with anyone about getting reimbursed from mister Epstein. Ten.
And we've learned many of the girls, some of whom
are as old as twenty three, were told by the
(08:39):
government that they would get money at the end of
the criminal prosecution. Does that sound familiar to you? Answer no, sir, Well,
I knew that none of the special agents or I
had discussed lawsuits or even restitution with any of the
victims during any of their interviews, and that the first
assistant US Attorney, Sloman, had never met any of the victims.
This was exactly the type of ross examination that I
(09:01):
anticipated Epstein's attorneys would try a trial the office, and
I concluded that opening up the possibility for such impeachment
would be detrimental to the prosecution of Epstein if a
negotiated resolution failed and Epstein were thereafter to be criminally charged.
As noted above, the negotiations were difficult, and at times
(09:21):
I urged the office to break off negotiations when I
felt Epstein's attorneys were proceeding in bad faith. Despite my reservations,
I attempted to conduct the negotiations professionally and cordially. Petitioners
in this case have attempted to construce some of my
communications to suggest that I was overly friendly with Epstein's
counsel to the detriment of the victims, or that I
(09:44):
was taking steps to undercut the victim's ability to be
present at any change of plea. These allegations are erroneous.
I was simply being professional and cordial with opposing counsel.
For example, I'm chided for an email regarding researching misdemeanor charges,
but as noted above, I was instructed to construct a
plea to federal or state offenses that resulted in a
(10:06):
sentence of two years later reduced eighteen months. This required
me to find a relevant charge with the agreed upon
statutory maximum, and then determine whether the facts developed in
the investigation fit that charge. I was unable to find
a relevant federal charge that had a statutory maximum of
two years and that required me to research the possibility
(10:27):
of stacking two federal misdemeanor charges. The petitioners also suggest
that I attempted to contrive to establish jurisdiction away from
the location where the crimes actually occurred and away from
where the victims actually lived, so as to avoid the
public finding out about anything. This is also false. By
the time of that email, there was already intense press
(10:49):
coverage of the case, including efforts to publicly identify victims,
as noted above and in the declaration of Special Agent Kirkanhal,
and even in the letters from Jane do Twos counsel.
The victims who have been interviewed in the federal investigation
were most concerned about keeping their identity secret. The possibility
of press coverage was a strong deterrent to that participation
(11:11):
in the investigation and possible prosecution. My reason for recommending
filing charges in Miami was to protect the privacy interests
of the victims in the case by allowing them the
opportunity to attend court proceedings, by definition, proceedings open to
the public, with a reduced chance that their identities would
be compromised. The FBI and the U. S. Attorney's Office
(11:34):
regularly transport victims from their homes to court proceedings, and
the same would have occurred if federal charges against Epstein
were filed in Miami. Similarly, with regard to the selection
of attorney representatives for the victims, I recommend two Miami
attorneys who I know to have reputations for being tenacious, skillful,
and committed to protecting their clients rather than burnishing their
(11:57):
reputations in the press. Although I understood that any civil
suits that were filed would be publicly available, in light
of stated desire of most victims to remain anonymous, I
did not believe that any attorney representative who actively sought
press coverage would be best suited to represent the victims
in this case and protect their privacy interests. All right, folks,
(12:19):
we're going to wrap up right here, and in the
next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up
where we left off. 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.