← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: The DOJ And Their Long Running Conversation With Epstein's Lawyers (6/25/26)
01:17:41
The back-and-forth between prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida and Jeffrey Epstein’s legal team during the negotiation of the non-prosecution agreement reads less like an adversarial process and more like a prolonged, collaborative...
Loading summary
Transcript8 lines
- [00:01]
BILT Advertiser
If you're still paying one of your biggest expenses, either rent or mortgage without bilt, it's time for a change. BILT is the membership for where you live that rewards you on rent, mortgage and around your neighborhood. Every monthly housing payment earns you points that can be used toward flights, hotels, Lyft rides, Amazon.com purchases and more. Earn rewards and get something back wherever you live. Become a BILT member today at joinbuilt.com mission that's just J-O-I-N-B-I-L-T.com mission
- [00:37]
Lowe's Advertiser
this July 4th at Lowe's, get up to 45% off select major appliances plus save $80 on a select Char Broil Performance Series gas grill. Now $299. Our best lineup is here at Lowes Lowe's. We help you save valid through 7 8, while supplies last selection varies by location. See lowe's.com for more details.
- [01:00]
Narrator / Epstein Chronicles Host
Visit your nearby low Foreign what's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're gonna dig into the files a little bit and we're gonna check out the correspondence between the Florida Prosecutor's Office, the Southern District of Florida, their internal emails, and the emails sent to Jeffrey Epstein's legal team. So why don't we dive in? The first email was sent by Marie Vilafana and it was sent on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 at 1:37pm and it was sent to Jeff Sloman, Matthew Menschel, Andrew Lowery and it has to do with conference plea negotiations. Now the email hi all, I fixed some typos. Here's the final we'll be headed upstairs in a minute. The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachment and then here is the confidential plea negotiations the terms of Epstein's non prosecution agreement. Epstein pleads guilty not nolo contendre here to an information filed by the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office charging him with a lewd and lascivious battery on a child in violation of Florida Statute 800.044B Solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution and violation of Florida statute 796.03 and c engaging in sexual activity with minors at least 16 years of age in violation of Florida statute 794.05. Epstein and the State Attorney's Office make a joint binding recommendation that Epstein serve at least two years in prison while without any opportunity for withholding, adjudication or sentencing and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment. Epstein agrees to waive all challenges to the information filed by the state and the right to appeal. Epstein agrees that if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file suit pursuant to U.S. code 18, Section 2255, Epstein will not contest the the jurisdiction of the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and the subject matter. Epstein will not contest that the identified victims or persons who while minors were victims of Violations of Title 18, U.S. code Section 2422 and 2423 and who suffered personal injury as a result of such violations. After Epstein enters his state court plea and is sentenced, the FBI and the U.S. attorney's office will close their investigations. This agreement only applies to the victims already identified and the crimes currently under investigation. If additional victims or crimes are discovered. For example, if child pornography is found on the computers that are the subject of the motion to quash, the FBI and the United States are free to investigate and prosecute those crimes. And can somebody please refresh my memory on what Pam Bondi and Todd Blanch said they found on Epstein's computers? Oh, that's right, C.P. so you know this whole entire non prosecution agreement we're talking about, it's null and void. And again, it's not me just telling you that. Here are the receipts. This offer will remain open only until 4pm Friday, August 10, 2007. If accepted, Epstein must enter his state guilty plea not later than August 31, 2007. All right, moving on to the next email. This one was sent 8-2-2007 at 8:55. Hi Matt, thanks. I think I figured out a way to do a federal plea with a two and a half year cab. It's a little funky but it matches the facts. Next email. Marie Villafana, 8-3-2007 To Matthew Menshell, to Andrew Lowry and Jeff Sloman and cc'd Karen Atkinson. Hi all. I just noticed one typo in the letter. Second paragraph, second to last line. With respect to setting the deadline for the response, here's the timing that I would like to suggest. If they're going to accept the deal, we would need to know by August 15th. Since they're likely to ask for an extension, we might want to give them a soft deadline of the 10th so we can give an extension until the 15th. Assuming the deal is not accepted, the agents and I will go to New York on 8-20-21 to try and serve target letters onto assistance. The third is already represented and to do two or three witness interviews. The target letters would invite targets to appear before the grand jury on August 28th and we will plan to indict on September 4th. This schedule should also give us enough time to resolve the computer issues with Judge Mara. Let me know what you think. Thanks. The next correspondence we have here is from August 2, 2007, and it was sent by the office of Fowler, White and Burnett on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. Dear Matt, as we discussed today in Tuesday's meeting, and consistent with our view that no federal prosecution should lie in this matter, Mr. Epstein is prepared to resolve this matter to via a state forum. We're in receipt of your memo regarding same and as the dynamics of the meeting did not allow for us to fully detail our proposal, we do so now. We believe that our respective positions are not very far apart and that a mutually agreeable resolution can be reached that will accomplish the interest of the United States Attorney's office as well as the community. We welcomed your recognition that a state prison sentence is neither appropriate for normal NOR Acceptable to Mr. Epstein, as the dangers of the state prison system pose risks that are clearly untenable. We acknowledge that your suggestion of a plea to two federal misdemeanors was an attempt to resolve this dilemma. Our proposal is significantly punitive and if implemented, would, we believe, leave little doubt that the federal interest was demonstrably vindicated. The Florida state judicial system, on unlike the federal system, provides for numerous types of onerous sanctions after a defendant is remanded to the custody of the state. The sentence is tailored to the needs of the local community and the risk posed by the specific defendant. After a great deal of thought, our proposal consists of both a severe supervised custody with an assurance that any violation would result in the immediate implementation of the two year period of incarceration. We must keep in mind that Jeffrey Epstein's a 54 year old man who has never been arrested before. He's lived an otherwise exemplary life characterized by both many charitable contributions and philanthropic acts. His reputation has suffered significantly as a result of his poor judgment in these matters. He is well aware of the ramifications of his past behavior and accordingly, there is no concern whatsoever that he will reoffend. And what I take from that one imagine Menshel getting involved here to try to make it a misdemeanor. And you'll notice throughout these emails as we're going through them, they're trying to help Epstein the whole entire time. None of it's centered on the survivors. None of it. The following proposal is offered as an assurance to the community that the goals of appropriate punishment and rehabilitation are are attained, we will agree to a sentence of two years in a state prison pursuant to Florida Statute 948.0122, which permits a split sentence whereby Mr. Epstein will be sentenced to a term of supervised custody followed by a period of incarceration. Supervised custody in the state system includes potential daily surveillance administered by officers with restricted caseloads. Supervised custody is an individualized program in which the freedom of Mr. Epstein is limited to the confines of his residence with specific sanctions imposed and enforced. See Florida Statute 948.0012. Should Mr. Epstein successfully complete the terms and conditions of his custody, the judge will eliminate the incarcerative portion of the sentence. If Mr. Epstein, however, fails to comply with with the conditions of his supervised custody, the period of incarceration will be immediately implemented. We therefore propose the two years supervised custody with the following mandatory and special confinement to home Report to a community control officer at least once a week or more often as directed by the officer. Permit a community control officer to visit him unannounced at home at any time of day or night. Obtain psychological counseling. No unsupervised contact with all the victims in the instant case. Perform community service Payment of Restitution Application of U.S. code 18, Section 2255 Payment of a contribution of a defined amount to a charitable organization benefiting victims of sexual assault Payment of court and probationary services Payment of law enforcement investigative costs Submit to random drug testing refrain from associating with persons engaged in criminal activities. Refrain from committing any new law offenses any other specific conditions that the office may deem necessary. Two additional years of reporting probation Mandatory conditions as provided, including in Florida statute 948.03 special conditions as stated above in the terms of supervised custody and probation are successfully completed, then the two years of state prison is eliminated. The proposal provides for the two year imposition of the state prison sentence if any violation of the supervised custody or probation occurs. Accordingly, the office position that Mr. Epstein agree to a resolution that includes jail time is satisfied by this proposal. It would immediately bring closure to a matter that has been pending for over two years, allows Mr. Epstein to commence with his sentence and most significantly allows the victims to move forward with their lives. We're in the process of scheduling a meeting with Alexander Acosta, U.S. attorney, to further discuss this matter. Alexander Acosta, Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black were all cc'd on this and it was signed by Lily Sanchez. Next email was sent by Lily Sanchez on August 2, 2007 to Matt Menshel and Jacqueline Barrero was cc'd. Message Matt, please see attached and confirm receipt. I'm also having letter hand delivered to you and Alex. Regards. Next email from Marie Vilafana and this email was sent on August 2, 2007. It was sent to Matthew Menschel, Jeff Sloman and Andrew Lowery. The message do you want to do a conference call and has a meeting with Alex been set up? Thanks. The reply from Matt Menschel to Marie Vilafana, Jeff Sloman and Andrew Lowery Yes I think we should. And Alex has to leave early but is available by phone response by Marie Vilafana to all the same interested parties. I'm free anytime before 5:30 should Andy and I call from his office. Alright folks, we're gonna wrap up this episode right here and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're going to pick up where we left off with the emails that were sent by the Southern District of Florida's Prosecutor's office to each other and to Epstein's lawyers as they were trying to hammer out the plea deal. Message from Matthew Menchel to Marie Vilafana August 1, 2007 Just letting you know that we didn't receive anything from the defense today. Lily Sanchez called late in the afternoon to say it'll be coming tomorrow. Response to that message Bye. Marieva Lafana hi Matt, Thanks. I think I just figured out a way to do a federal plea with a two and a half year cap. It's a little funky, but it matches the facts. Next correspondence is a letter sent by Marie Vilafana to Lily Sanchez, who's one of Epstein's attorneys. This letter was sent on August 3, 2007.
- [14:09]
BILT Advertiser
If you're still paying one of your biggest expenses, either rent or mortgage without bilt, it's time for a change. BILT is the membership for where you live that rewards you on rent, mortgage and around your neighborhood. Every monthly housing payment earns you points that can be used toward flights, hotels, Lyft rides, Amazon.com purchases and more. Earn rewards and get something back wherever you live. Become a BILT member today at joinbilt.com mission that's J-O-I-N-B-I-L-T.com mission
- [14:43]
Narrator / Epstein Chronicles Host
Dear Lily, thank you for your letter of August 2nd regarding your proposal on how to resolve The Epstein matter. As we explained at our meeting on July 31, 2007, the office believes that the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two year term of state imprisonment. For Mr. Epstein, that offer was not meant as a starting point for negotiations. It's the minimum term of imprisonment that will obviate the need for federal prosecution. The office has never agreed that a state prison sentence is not appropriate for Mr. Epstein. Rather, we simply stated that that if Mr. Epstein preferred to serve his sentence in a federal penitentiary, we would be willing to explore a federal conviction that may allow that in lieu of any state resolution. Further, as I made clear in our follow up telephone conversation after the meeting, a plea to two federal misdemeanors was never extended or meant as an offer. We also would reiterate that the agreement to section 2255 liability applies to to all of the minor girls identified during the federal investigation, not just the 12 that form the basis of an initial plan charging instrument. As you know, the ability to engage in flexible plea negotiations is dramatically changed on the return of an indictment. Once an indictment is returned, the Office does not intend to file a superseding information containing a lesser charge or to dismiss the case in in favor of state prosecution. Please let us know your client's decision by no later than August 17th. I've conferred with US Attorney Acosta who has asked me to communicate that the two year term of incarceration is a non negotiable minimum to vindicate a federal interest. And at this time he's not inclined to meet with counsel for Mr. Epstein. Sincerely, Alex Acosta. But it was signed by Matthew Menschel. All right, moving on to the next correspondence. This one was sent by Marie Vilafana to Cindy Campos and Frederica Devlin. Hi, Cindy and Freddy. I need to check on whether Matt sent something out before he left. Jeff doesn't know if it went out and he suggested that I try Matt on his cell. I called the cell number on the roster, but it seems to be disconnected. Do you have a contact number for him? Thanks. Next correspondence by Marie Vilafana to Jeff Sloman. And this was on August 6, 2007. Hi, Jeff. Sorry to bother you when you're away. Do you know if the letter to Lily went out on Friday? Thanks. The next correspondence we have is Alex Acosta sending an email to Jeff Sloman. And this was sent on August 7, 2007. Just tried to call your cell. No need to call back. I would really appreciate if you could loop him and Marie in as Appropriate. I'll have Cindy set up a meeting. Sorry again to bother you, but everyone seems to be out this weekend. Next message was from Andrew. From Jeff Sloman. Excuse me. To Andrew Osterbahn with Marie Vilafana. Cc'd Maria and the chain of emails is self explanatory. Next email sent by Marie vilafana on Tuesday, August 7, 2007. FYI, P.S. matt's letter gave them a deadline of August 17. Next correspondence was August 7, 2007 and it was sent from Alex Acosta to Jeff Sloman. Jeff, apologies for the email in the middle of your vacation. With Matt gone and Andy out, I'm not sure who is speaking with CEOs on the Epstein matter. His attorney want to go to D.C. on the case on the grounds of process fell I. E. That I have not met with him. I'm concerned that this will delay matters. I'm thinking of heading this off by one, agreeing to meet to discuss general legal policy only, the only matter in which DC has arguable jurisdiction while asking or while making it clear that we are not talking about the details of the case and two, asking the Drew Osterbahn to participate by teleconference, thereby intercepting the DC meeting. Thoughts? Next correspondence is from Marie Vilafana. August 7, 2007. This one's to Andrew Osterbahn. Hi Drew. I don't know how much Jeff and Andy have been keeping you in the loop, so let me know if you need any info or if you just want to talk before the meeting. Next email was sent by Marie Vilafana on Tuesday, August 7th once again. And this email was sent to Andrew Laurie. Hi Andy. FYI, apparently the defense is displeased with Matt's letter which set a deadline of 8:17 and said that Alex would meet with them. So they're demanding a meeting with CEOs. Alex and Drew are going to try to do a conference call with the defense to avoid the troop going to dc. Has Drew been kept in the loop? Is there anything I should send them? And the agents just interviewed another girl who started going when she was 14. Next correspondence is from Marie Vilafana on August 8, 2007 to Andrew Osterbahn. Hi Drew. I've attached the plea term sheet and the guidelines calculating that was given to Mr. Epstein's attorneys on July 31. Lily's letter of August 2 is sort of in response to that. Several months ago, when the prosecution memo was first sent to you, you mentioned adding a CEO's attorney to the team. We probably should wait until this Attempt at plea negotiations is finished, but I hope to have a few motions responses in the bag before I indict. The two that spring to mind most readily are an appeal to the district court if he's released on bond, and my response to a motion to dismiss the indictment on the basis that one or all of the statutes are unconstitutional. Myisha Braden and I have spoken about the case a few times when I was doing research, and she's been wonderful. But if there is someone else that you think would be better, I'm all up for the help. Thank you. Signed, Marie Vilafana. Next, correspondence from Marie Vilafana to Alex Acosta, Cindy Campos with Jeff Sloman and Andrew Lowery and Andrew Osterbahn. CC'd Alex and Cindy. I just got off the phone with Drew. He's gone from August 10th through August 20th, and he'll be back in his office on August 21st. He's willing to participate by telephone if we want to stay firm on our August 17 deadline. If the call is going to wait until after then. He's also willing to travel to Miami to attend the meeting in person. But if we do that, we should probably not have the meeting until August 23rd to give Drew some time to recover and catch up on his work before he hops on a flight down here. The agents and I were planning to go to New York for August 20th, 21st, 22nd, to serve target letters on the assistance and to interview some of Epstein's colleagues and former employees whom we know were around the girls. I would like to still do this trip, but I know there was some concern about serving target letters while we were trying to negotiate a plea. Can you give some guidance? Thank you. Next, correspondence from Alex Acosta to. To Marie Vilafana, Cindy Campos with Jeff Sloman, Andrew Lowery, and Andrew Osterbahn. Cced Marie. I'll leave the target letter issue to Andy and Jeff. The meeting. Cindy Campos will try to schedule it. There are several vacations going on next week, so Drew is not the only conflict. If Drew can come to Miami, that would be great. If not, we can VTC Drew. I appreciate your doing this. The meeting is to focus on constitutional and policy issues. Only your being part of it will, I hope, intercept an eventual appeal to D.C. maybe we can even interest you on joining the trial team. Next, correspondence from Andrew Osterbahn to Alex Acosta, Marie Vilafana, Cindy Campos, and Jeff Sloman and Andrew Lowery are cc'd. I'm more than happy to help, Alex. It doesn't take much of a reason to get me on a plane to Miami. And and this meeting is certainly reason enough. If it's at any day after the 20th, I'll be there. As for joining the trial team, I'm even rustier than Sloman and Lowry, but if Marie would stand for it, count me in. Thanks very much. Next correspondence was from Marie Vilafana to Jeffrey Sloman on September 6, 2007. Hi Jeff, funny you should ask. I've been wondering the same thing. Here's the term sheet and the guideline calculation that we provided the last meeting you and Matt and I also discussed possible federal plea to an information charging a 371 conspiracy with a Rule 11 plea with a two year cap. But I think Matt must have asked Alex about it and it was nixed. Just to be prepared for tomorrow, I was just starting to draft a Rule 11 plea agreement in case Alex changes his mind and a formal non prosecution agreement containing the state plea terms. As soon as those are ready I will email them to you. There are three concerns that I hope we can address tomorrow. First, that there is an absolute drop dead date for accepting or rejecting because it's strategically important that we indict before the end of September, which means presenting the indictment on September 25th. Second, the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as Drew politely reminded me is required under the law. And third, I do not want to make any promises about allowing Epstein to self surrender because I still believe that we have a good chance of getting him detained. On another note, Junior OT called today from Palm Beach Police because he got information that there will be an article released tomorrow on about our meeting and that Epstein is going to plead to a state charge and the chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal. There has been some coverage in New York press about Ken Starr, but I haven't seen anything local yet. Alright folks, we're going to wrap this one up right here and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where we left off. All 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 dive right back into that email chain between Marie Vilafana, the other members of the prosecution team and Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers. And this email chain had to do with the first arrest of Jeffrey Epstein down in Florida in 2007. 2008. Picking up from where we left off this Email was from Marie Vilafana to Jeff sloman on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 hi Jeff, I just left you a voicemail so you can disregard that. We had a very good meeting with Drew on Friday. No one was sure whether you wanted FBI presence at the meeting on Friday and Drew thought that I should ask you. Could you let me know? And does the meeting with Epstein's team started too? Is there a plan for a pre meeting meeting with our folks? Thanks. The next email in the chain is from Marie Villafana to Jeff sloman with John McMillan cc'd the email. Hi Jeff, you missed so much fun stuff on Friday. I hope you had a good visit with your daughter. I'm running off to court but I'm hoping that we can talk this afternoon about the meeting and strategy going forward. Alex asked Junior to talk to Nesbitt and Jason about the handling of the State court grand jury.
- [26:57]
Lowe's Advertiser
Junior this July 4th at Lowe's get up to 45% off select major appliances plus save $80 on a select Char Broil Performance Series gas grill. Now $299. Our best lineup is here at Lowe's. Lowe's we help you Save valid through 7A while supplies last selection varies by location. See Lowes.com for more details.
- [27:23]
BILT Advertiser
Visit your nearby Lowe's when you're a maintenance engineer in a beverage manufacturing plant, you keep production lines moving and quality on track because there is no room for slowdowns. With Grainger's vast selection of high quality motors, sensors, belts and hard to find parts, you can get what you need fast and all in one place so nothing gets in the way of getting the job done. Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickranger.com or to stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.
- [27:58]
Narrator / Epstein Chronicles Host
Left a message saying that he had done so and both reported that in their opinion it had been mishandled for for a number of reasons. I don't think I can forward the message to your voicemail, so you may want to call Junior directly if you or Alex wants to hear it from the horse's mouth as they say. This is by the way, one of the things that we should talk about this afternoon. Next email Maria Vilafana to Jeffrey Sloman and Andrew Lowry. Jeff and Andy, the agents are asking whether Alex had a chance to talk to the SA ic. Do you know? Next email sent by Marie Vilafana to Jeff Sloman about the plea. Hi Jeff, I just talked with Andy. I'm sure that he communicated these thoughts, but I wanted to mention just a couple of things that I hope to talk to you about. There are two things that I think might be tricks up the sleeve of the defense. First, Lilliane had mentioned in our Miami meeting with all the defense attorneys at Epstein would be willing to do a split sentence of community control followed by jail time because in the state system, if you complete community control without a violation, the jail time is converted to probation or more community control. Second, it wasn't clear that Epstein would be pleading to a child sex offense that involves sex offender registration. Third, I mentioned to Andy that the revised indictment references 19 victims, so 15 months is less than one month per victim. I agree that this is a reasonable counteroffer in light of our starting position of 24 months, but this is a really low sentence. So whatever the U.S. attorney decides to do, can we please just follow with a version of my written non prosecution agreement that will allow us to avoid any state shenanigans and will keep the defense on a strict timeline? Before this counteroffer, I I was going to propose that we include in our response to Messers Starr and Lefkowitz one page of the draft Overt act section. I've attached the proposed overt acts related to two of the girls as an example. Next email by Marie Vilafana to Jeff Sloman, Alex Acosta, Cece, John McMillan, Rolando Garcia, Karen Atkinson and Andrew Laurie. Here is my proposed non prosecution agreement. Since Jerry Leftcourt is the attorney who contacted Andy with the counteroffer, I have used his name as attorney for Mr. Epstein. If another attorney will be in that role, I can change the signature block. Please let me know if you have any questions or changes terms of the Agreement 1. Epstein shall plead guilty not nolo contendre to an information file by the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm beach county here and after the State Attorney's Office charging violations of the following Florida statutes a Lewd and lascivious battery on a child in violation of Florida Statute 800.044B Solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution in violation of Florida statute 796.03 and c engaging in sexual activity with minors and at least 16 years of age in violation of Florida Statute 794.052. Epstein and the State Attorney's Office shall make a joint binding recommendation that the courts impose a 30 month sentence to be divided as follows A. Epstein shall begin by serving at least 20 months in prison without any opportunity for withholding, adjudication or sentencing and without probation or community control, the lie of imprisonment and b following the term of imprisonment, Abstein shall serve 10 months of community control. 3. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the information filed by the State Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. 4. Epstein shall provide to the U.S. attorney's Office copies of all proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering into those agreements. Epstein agrees that if any of the victims identified in the Federal investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S. code section 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. district Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and or the subject matter and Epstein will not contest that the identified victims are persons who, while minors, were victims of Violation of Title 18, United States Code Section 2422 Andor 2423. 6. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of identified victims which will not exceed 40. After Epstein has signed this agreement and entered a guilty plea, the United States shall make a motion with the U.S. district Court for the Southern District of Florida for the appointment of a guardian ad lydium for the identified victims and and Epstein's counsel may contact the identified victims through that counsel. 7. Epstein shall enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than September 28, 2007 and shall begin service of his sentence not later than October 15, 2007. 8 With credit for gain time, Epstein will serve at least 17 months in a state correctional institution. Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State of Florida to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that it's his obligation to undertake discussions with the State of Florida to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States interest pursuant to the Petite Policy. By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that that each of these items is material to this Agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any of these conditions allows the US to elect to terminate the Agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein for any and all Federal offenses. By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he's aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides that all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48B of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the court may dismiss an indictment, information or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the grand jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed to be necessary delay at his own request and he hereby waves any defense to such prosecution on the grounds that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48B of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of the agreement and the breach of this agreement. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment and and Rule 7A of the federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. All right, moving on to the next message from Alex Acosta to Jeff Slowman. I did a small rewrite, shouldn't affect things, but wanted to add the original state charges in a statement that it would be his job to move the state to add the additional charges. Next message from Jeff Sloman to Marie Vilafana. Got your message about the hearing. Alex had some suggested changes to the agreement that shouldn't affect the deal. Thanks Jeff. Next email was sent by Marie Vilafana to Jeffrey Sloman on September 11, 2007 do you want me to make these and resend them to Jerry Lefcourt? Next message from Marie Vilafana to Gerald Lefcourt with Alex Acosta, Jeff Sloman and Andrew Laurie. All cc'd Dear Jerry, I have attached a revised version as per Mr. Acosta's request. The operative terms have not changed. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Also, please confirm your receipt of this email. Thank you. Next email is from Andrew Laurie to Marie Vilafana on on September 11, 2007. What is our latest offer? Next email response from Reva Lafana to Andrew Lawre. Plead to the three specified charges, a 30 month sentence split, 20 in jail and 10 in community control and agree that the girls are victims for purposes of damages. We also put in deadlines for a plea and sentencing date. Next email from Andrew Laurie to Marie Good Barry leaves early for Jewish holidays. Any chance you can make 1:30 response from VilaFauna on September 11, 2007 to Andrew Laurie Hey Andy, I will try to get back as soon as possible. I just don't know how long it'll be or I'll be at the hospital. Is it just us three or is Jerry Lefcourt also attending? What should I be prepared to discuss next? Email from Marie Vilafana to Alex Acosta, Jeff Sloman, Rolando Garcia and Karen Atkinson and also Andrew Laurie hi all, I've not heard back from any of Mr. Epstein's attorneys today about the plea, but I know that they're out for the holiday. I'll be out tomorrow, so today I finish the indictment package. If we decide to go forward. It currently is with Karen Atkinson. I then paged through Title 18 and came up with two possibilities. US Code 18, Section 403 is a misdemeanor with a one year statutory maximum for violation of the privacy rights of a child victim. We would have to show an intentional disclosure of documents or information concerning a child victim to someone other than a participant in the legal proceedings. When the state prosecution first hit the press, Epstein's attorneys, especially Roy Black, made statements about the credibility of some of the child victims with specific identifying information and I would base two charges on information disclosed about two of the victims. U.S. code 18, Section 1512D is also a misdemeanor with a one year statutory maximum. We would have to show that Epstein or someone on his behalf intentionally harassed another person to hinder, delay, prevent or or dissuade that person from reporting to a law enforcement officer the commission or a possible commission of a federal offense, or to dissuade the person from causing a criminal prosecution to be sought or instituted. Three girls have mentioned exertions of pressure to keep them from reporting the offenses or talking to law enforcement. My guess is that he will object to these charges because he would have to plead to two counts which would expose him to the potential of a 24 month sentence if he does so. I recommend that we consider the Rule 11 plea rather than try to create violations out of whole cloth. I also determined that a defendant who receives a prison sentence on a misdemeanor offense is also eligible for a one year of supervised release. Another option is a plea. 247 USC Section 223, which prohibits someone in interstate or foreign communication by means of telecommunication device knowingly one initiates transmission of any request, suggestion, proposal or other communication which is obscene, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication place the call or initiated the communication. The this is a felony offense with a two year minimum statutory maximum. To move things along, I'VE put together an information package assuming a plea to two counts of violating Section 403. I will leave that information with Karen as well in case you want to make any changes tomorrow. Thank you. Marieva Lafana. All right, we're going to wrap up this episode right here and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where we left off. All the information that goes with this episode and 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 with the emails from Marie Villafana to the other members of the prosecution and to Jeffrey Epstein's legal team. Email from Andrew Lori to Marie Vilafana on September 13, 2007. He is going to give us an assault on the plane or we can do conspiracy. Next email from Marie Vilafana to Andrew Laurie on September 13, 2007. Hi Andy, it would still have to be conspiracy to commit an assault on a plane. I just want to make sure that we have something that is factually accurate. Just trying to plan ahead. I just got an email from Jay Lefkowitz asking if I'm free to talk tomorrow and at nine will you be in then? I have to report to the hospital at 10:15. Next email from Andrew Lowry to Marie Vilafana sent on 9-13-2007. I have a 9:30 hearing in Miami. Vilafana responded on 9-13-2007 to Andrew Laurie. All right, I will get Rolando and or Jeff to come with me. Next email Marie Vilafana to Rolando Garcia and Jeff Sloman. Hi all. I just received an email from Jay Lefkowitz wanting to do a call tomorrow morning. Andy will be on the road but will be on the conference call. Does anyone else want to join in? Next email from Marie Vilafana on 9-13-2007 to Karen Atkinson and Sean Ball CC John McMillan in case Karen has any changes to the indictment package and and wants to send it on to Rolando. Here are the indictment and prosecution memo. Sean has the forms. Next email was sent by Marie vilafana on Friday September 14th, 2007. This email was sent to Jeff Sloman, Alex Acosta, Andrew Lowery, Rolando Garcia cc'd Karen Atkinson, John McMillan and Sean Ball. Hi all. Jay and I talk through the main issue we're which were the charges that Epstein would plead guilty to? He put in a pitch for only 12 months. I put in a pitch that he plead 224 with a 20 month recommendation and we decided that we would be stuck with the 18 months. So he will plead to one count of obstructing a witness from reporting a crime based upon Redacted's call to one of the girls subtly pressuring her not to participate in the investigation and one count of simple assault on an airplane based upon an incident where Epstein put great pressure Jay's words on Redacted to call the girls to set up appointments. I will revise the plea agreement accordingly and draft an information for your review. I'll be out for the rest of the day but I'll be accessible over the weekend. I will give you all of the electronic files to Karen and Sean in case you need to make changes. Jay thinks he will have a signed agreement by Monday and I'm hoping that we can convince Judge Mara to use the time on Tuesday that he set aside for the hearing to take the plea instead. Documents to follow Next Email Marie Vilafana to Jeff Sloman, Alex Acosta, Rolando Garcia, Andrew Laurie CCed Karen Atkinson and Sean Ball. Here are the proposed plea agreement and information. If any changes need to be made, please please contact Sean via email. I'll be out the rest of the day but you can contact me at phone number given and I will be able to access email over the weekend. Next email from Marie Vilafana to Jeff Sloman, Alex Acosta, Andrew Lowrey, Rolando Garcia and CeCe to Karen Atkinson, John McMillan and Sean Ball. This email was sent on September 14, 2007. Hi all, Jay and I talked through the main issue which was the charges that Epstein would plead guilty to. He put in a pitch for only 12 months. I put in a pitch that he plead to 24 with a 20 month recommendation and we decided that we would be stuck with the 18 months. So we will plead to one count of obstructing a witness from reporting of crime based upon Sarah Kellen's call to to one of the girls subtly pressuring her not to participate in the investigation and one count of simple assault on an airplane based upon an incident where Epstein put great pressure on Redacted not to call girl or to call girls to set up appointments. I will revise the plea agreement accordingly and draft an information for your review. I'll be out the rest of the day but I'll be accessible over the weekend. I'll give all the electronic files to Karen and Sean and in case you need to make changes. Jay thinks we will have a signed agreement by Monday and I'm hoping that we can convince Judge Mara to use the time on Tuesday to take this hearing instead of the plea. Instead documents to follow. Next email was sent by Marie Vilafana on September 14, 2007 to Jeff Sloman, Alex Acosta, Rolando Garcia and Andrew Laurie. CC'd Karen Atkinson, Sean Ball. Here are the proposed plea agreement and information. If any changes need to be made, please contact Sean via email and I'll be out the rest of the day but I'll be able to access my emails over that time. Thank you. Next email from Jeff Sloman to Marie Vilafana, Alex Acosta, Rolando Garcia and Andrew Laurie. Cced Karen Atkinson and Sean Ball. Andy has agreed to help finalize this. I'll be out of town beginning tomorrow. Next email from Marie Vilafana to Rolando Garcia and Andrew hi Rolando, here's the last email that I sent to Jay last night. Jay talk with his client about it and reports that they're leaning towards options one or four. They're going to try to make the decision today. There seems to be some dissension in the ranks because because Jack Goldberger gave some incorrect information and draft a proposed either non prosecution agreement or a plea agreement. As you can see from my list below, there are a number of things in their last draft that were unacceptable. All the loopholes that I sewed up they tried to open. So Jay is supposed to be consulting with Roy Black regarding the correct state information and then will give me a call. I agreed to ask the judge to take the hearing off the calendar tomorrow and postpone the grand jury appearances that were scheduled from tomorrow. But I told him no uncertain terms that I am indicting on the 25th so this needs to be resolved early this week. Andy and I talked about all of this as well. Long answer to short question Sorry hi Jay, this can wait until after the show but my voice is going so I thought that I would type it up. I talked to Andy and he still doesn't like the factual basis. In his opinion the plea should only address the crimes that we're addressing and we're not investigating Mr. Epstein abusing his girlfriend. So these are the only options that he recommended. 1. We go back to the original agreement where Mr. Epstein pleads only to stay charges and serves his time in the state except that we can agree to 18 months imprisonment. 2. Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to the state charges and also pleads to either two obstruction counts or to one count of violating U.S. code 47 section 223A, 1 and B with a joint non binding recommendation of 18 months so that Mr. Epstein can serve his time federally. 3. My suggestion only, not Andy's. I go back to the U.S. attorney and ask him to agree to an ABA plea plea to to a 371 count conspiracy to violate 2422B with a binding 20 month recommendation so that Mr. Epstein can serve all of his time in a federal facility. Or four. Mr. Epstein pleads to one obstruction count and serves part of his time federally and part state. On your other proposed changes. Some are fine and some are problematic. Your paragraph 2. And as to timing, it is my understanding that Mr. Epstein needs to be sentenced in the state after he is sentenced in the federal case, but that he needs to plead guilty and be sentenced after serving his federal time. And he recommended that some of the timing issues be addressed only in the state agreement so that it is an obvious to the judge that we're trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison purposes. My understanding is that Mr. Epstein should should sign a state plea agreement, plead guilty to the federal offenses, plead guilty to the state offenses, be sentenced on the federal offenses, and then be sentenced on the state offenses and then start serving the federal sentence. Response your paragraph three as to the reservation of Mr. Epstein's right to withdraw the state plea or to appeal to the state plea sentence. That's fine, but we need the caveat that if, if you were to do so, the United States could proceed on our charges. Response to paragraph 6 with respect to the waiver of the right to appeal the federal sentence. Given the way that we have drafted the information, it's possible that getting the 18 month sentence will require an upward departure. The version of the agreement that you are working from is a federal non prosecution agreement. The ones I have sent you recently are plea agreements that are filed with the court. Please see if the appeal waiver language in those versions is. All right. Reply to paragraph 7. As I mentioned, we will not waive the presentence investigation. I know that this will delay Mr. Epstein's sentencing by 70 days, but that will allow him to get all of his affairs in order as to bill. It will be set at the time of the arraignment and we can work out a joint recommendation regarding the amount and and its limitations. I have no objection to making a joint recommendation that Mr. Epstein remain out on bond pending his sentencing. But I'm not sure that it belongs in a plea agreement, especially since I can't bind the court on that issue. However, I can assure you and we can put it in the record during the plea colloquy. That I will join in your recommendation that he remain out on bond pending sentence. The same goes for the prison camp issue. As I mentioned, I have opposed a designation only once in a very particular case. I can assure you that we can put it on the record at the plea colloquy that I will not oppose your recommendation for Mr. Epstein's designation. Response to paragraph 8. As I mentioned over the telephone, I can't bind the girls to the trust agreement. And I don't think it's appropriate that a state court would administer a trust that seeks to pay for for federal civil claims. We both want to avoid unscrupulous attorneys and or litigants from coming forward. And I know that your client wants to keep these matters outside of public court filings, but I just don't have the power to do what you ask. Here's my recommendation. During the period between Mr. Epstein's plea and sentencing, I make a motion for appointment of the guardian ad Lydium. The three of us sit down and discuss things, and I will facilitate as much as I can getting the girl's approval of this procedure, because, as I mentioned, I think it's probably in their best interest. In terms of plea agreement language, let me suggest the following. The United States agrees to make a motion seeking the appointment of a guardian at Lydium to represent the identified victims. Following the appointment of such a guardian, the parties agreed to work together in good faith to develop a trust agreement, subject to the court's approval, that would provide for any damages owed to the identified Victims pursuant to U.S. code 18, section 2255. Then include the last two sentences of your paragraph 8. Response to the two paragraphs following your paragraph 8, I will include our standard language regarding resolving all criminal liability. And I'll mention co conspirators, but I would prefer not the highlight for the judge, all the other crimes and all the other persons that we could charge. Hold on a minute. I have to interrupt here. Did you just hear what she said here? I will mention co conspirators, but I would prefer not the highlight for the judge. All of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge. Sure. Just a lone predator, though, right? Nothing like blowing the narrative out of the water. Also, we do not have the power to bind immigration, and we make it policy not to try to. However, I can tell you that as far as I know, there is no plan to try and proceed on any immigration charges against either Ms. Ross or Ms. Redacted. They mean Nadia there. Also, on the grand jury subpoenas. I can prepare letters withdrawing them as of signing of the plea agreement, but I would prefer to take out that language. In my eyes, once we have a plea agreement, the grand jury's investigation has ended and there can be no more use of the grand jury subpoena power. I had hoped that we were far closer to resolving this than it appears that we are. Can I suggest that tomorrow we either meet live or via teleconference, either with your client or having him within a quick phone call to hash out the items? I was hoping to work only a half day tomorrow to save my voice for Tuesday's hearing and grand jury if necessary, but maybe we can set a time to meet. If you want to meet off campus somewhere, that's fine. I'll make sure that I have all the necessary decision makers present or on the call as well. If we can resolve some of these issues today, let's try to and then save only the difficult issues for tomorrow. Sorry for the long email and for ruining your date with your daughter. This email was sent by Marie Vilafana. All right, folks, a lot to process there, so we're gonna wrap this one up. And in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off. All 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 right where we left off with the Marie Vilafana emails with the other prosecutors down in Florida and with Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers as they try to hammer out the plea deal. Email sent on September 17, 2007 by Rolando Garcia to Marie Vilafana. Marie, where are we in the plea negotiation? The next email we have was sent by Marie Vilafana to Alex Acosta, Andrew Laurie, Rolando Garcia and CeCe to Karen Atkinson and John McMillan. Hi all. I think that we may be near the end of our negotiation with Mr. Epstein and not because we have reached the resolution. As I mentioned yesterday, I spent about 12 hours over the weekend drafting informations, changing plea agreements and writing factual proffers. I was supposed to receive a draft agreement from them yesterday, which never arrived. At that time, they were leaning towards pleading only to stay charges and doing all of the time in state custody. Late last night, I talked to Jay Lefkowitz, who asked about Epstein pleading to two 12 month federal charges with half of his jail time being spent in home confinement pursuant to the guidelines. I told him that I had no Objection to that approach. But in the interest of full disclosure, I did not believe that Mr. Epstein was would be eligible because he will not be Zone A or B. This morning Jay called and said that I was correct, but if we could get Mr. Epstein down to 14 months, then he thought that he'd be eligible. My response? Have him plead to two separate informations. On the first one he gets 12 months imprisonment. On the second, he gets 12 months with 6 served in home confinement to run consecutively. I just received an email asking if Mr. Epstein could do 12 months in imprisonment instead. As you can see, Mr. Epstein is having second thoughts about doing jail time. I would like to send Jay an email stating that if we do not have a signed agreement by tomorrow at 5, negotiations will end. I've selected tomorrow at 5 because it gives them enough time to really negotiate an agreement if they're really serious about it. And if not, it gives me one more day before Jewish holiday to get witnesses lined up for Tuesday's grand jury appearance. Then I plan to present the indictment and it gives the office sufficient time to review the indictment package. Do you concur? Next email from Marie Vilafana to Rolando Garcia. Alex Acosta, Andrew Laurie and Karen Atkinson and John McMillan were cc'd. Hi all. I just spoke with Jay Lefkowitz. He reports that as of now they are leaning back towards pleading only to state charges with a non prosecution agreement. They're doing some legal research and talking with the state and Jay thinks that they should have a proposed agreement by late tonight or early tomorrow morning. I'm going to send them our last version of the non prosecution agreement so that he has a template to work from. Jay has my number in case I need to go home early and any questions come up. As soon as I know something, I'll pass it along. Next message was from Alex Acosta to Marie Villefana, Rolando Garcia and Andrew Laurie with Karen Atkinson and John McMillan cc'd. Please make sure that they know it's only a draft and that we still need approved final. The form and language may need polishing. Next email from Marie Vilafana to Alex Acosta. Absolutely. There were a lot of problems with their last attempt. They tried to reopen all the loopholes that I had sewn shut. Next email from jay Lefkowitz to MarieVillefana. Marie, please look this over and see if we can identify any issues that we need to discuss in greater detail. Since you can't go to only one count of obstruction, but 18 would become about 15 with gain time. I've made a proposal of a total of 24 month sentence based on two informations. This would include a period of home detention. We can then follow with an alternative to what we discussed just now that might plead to one count of 15 12, serve 12 months plus supervised release which would be one year of home detention if we can make that work followed by two years of probation in the state on the state charges with the first six months being community control. Next email from Marie Vilafana to Andrew Laurie and Rolando Garcia with Karen Atkinson cc'd. Andy and Rolando. Please review below so you understand my frustration. This document is redacted. Different from what Jay just told Andy they would agree to. He has it written as 16 months imprisonment followed by eight months of federal supervised release. He wants us to recommend an improper calculation of the guidelines and he wants to waive the PSI so he can keep all the information confidential. I've already told Jay that the PSI language and other language in his agreement was unacceptable to our office. I'll send back a plea agreement that reads consistent with what Jay represented to Andy. But I don't believe that this will be resolved by Tuesday unless they come down here and we have a group contract writing session with the state attorney's office and the decision makers. Next email was sent by Marie Vilafana to Andrew Lowry and Rolando Garcia with Karen Atkinson cc'd. He also removed any promise to plead to a registerable offense and the promise related to the girl's damages claims. Next email from Marie Vilafauna to Jay Lefkowitz. Hi Jay. I was hoping there would be things for me to read this morning, but I'll try to remain patient. I believe that there are only two types of agreements that would apply to this case. One, a plea agreement to a federal charge or charges and two, a non prosecution agreement which is really a deferred prosecution agreement because the defendant agrees that if he violates the agreement the U. S can prosecute him. A plea agreement as part of the court file. It's not accessible online via pacer, but someone can go to the clerk's office and obtain a copy. A non prosecution agreement would not be made public or filed with the court, but it would remain part of the case file. It probably would be subject to a freedom of information access request but is not something that we would distribute without compulsory process on the obstruction charges. Many of the facts I included in that first proffer were hypothesized based upon our discussions and the agent's observations of Ms. Groff, we still need the interviewer to confirm the accuracy of those facts. And on a second account, we could rely on the incident where Mr. Epstein's private investigators followed Redacted's father forcing him off the road. Or if there is something more recent related to any grand jury subpoenas, we could consider that. Hope this helps. Marie Vilafana the next email that was sent was sent by Marie Vilafana and it was sent to Andrew Laurie and cc'd Rolando Garcia. I just got their redline version. I'll forward it to you. Here are the issues that Rolando and I specifically discussed with them and rejected that they have reinserted into the agreement. 1. We agreed to recommend that no PSI be prepared. 2. They have converted it into an ABA plea as though we wouldn't notice. 3. They want us to agree the incorrect calculation of the guidelines. 4. Instead of agreeing that the girls can sue Epstein, they cannot sue him and instead are bound to apply to a trust administered by the state court. Jay and I have addressed this at least three times and it keeps appearing in his versions. 5. They change the state charge that he has to plead guilty to a non registrable offense and that he doesn't have to plead to the charge until after he finished serving his federal sentence. 6. They want us to not oppose the request for a prison camp designation. 7. They have re added paragraph 17 through 19, all of which are addressed by paragraph 2. There are other problems too, but these are the highlights. This is not a good faith negotiation. Next email sent by Marie Vilafana to Andrew Laurie and Rolando Garcia. We're still waiting for a red line of the agreement that they seemed happy with yesterday. Barry and Lana and Epstein's attorneys are coming to our office on Monday to finalize everything with the plan of getting them at least arraigned on Monday afternoon. They tried to drag it into Tuesday and I said no. Next email from Andrew Laurie to Marie. Can you send me a copy of the last thing you sent them? And this was sent on September 19th. Next email by Marie Vilafana to Andrew Laurie. FYI, the Palm Beach Post reported the whole deal in today's paper and claimed to have a federal source and a spy in Epstein's camp. Next email from Jay Lefkowitz to Marie Vilafana. Good job. A few thoughts. I would eliminate the first sentence of paragraph two. Is there another way to deal with the issue in paragraph three without this in the plea agreement? Do we need paragraph 10? Isn't paragraph 11 sufficient? Without 10? Is it our place to include paragraph 13 in this agreement. I think it belongs in the state agreement and it looks out of place here. I think you should include Roy or another member of the Florida Bar on the plea agreement so we are not slowed down as the last minute by pro hawk stuff. The next email we have is from Marie Vilafana to Andrew Laurie and Rolando Garcia with Karen Atkinson as the cc. Andy and Rolanda, this is my proposed response below. I know that you can keep saying he's going to plead and he will plead if we cave on everything, but I really don't think that Mr. Epstein is going to engage in serious negotiations until he sees the indictment and shows up in mag court, preferably in flip flops. In reviewing the indictment package, if you would like to maintain flexibility for the future, we could indict Mr. Epstein just on count one, the conspiracy charge. And if he won't plead to five years at that time, supersede with the remaining counts and just go to trial. But we gave them an initial deadline of early August with a 24 month sentence. We are now seven weeks later and we are just spinning our wheels. J the same problems that I emailed you about on Sunday and discussed yesterday with you and Rolando and that you discussed with Andy are still here. Paragraphs 4, 7, 8, 9, 11 have specifically been discussed and rejected. Paragraph 17 and 19 have been addressed in paragraph 2 and will not be repeated. You've removed our paragraph 4 regarding the application of the Sentencing Guidelines and 18 appeal waiver, both of which are specifically required by the office's appellate division. You have replaced Mr. Epstein's plea to a registrable offense to one that does not require registration. And you have again delayed the plea until after Mr. Epstein completes his federal prison sentence. Rolando and I specifically told you that was unacceptable. And Barry Krisher also informed us that he will not keep his case open for for that period. You also have inserted that this is a Rule 11C1C plea which binds the judge, which you know, we have specifically rejected. There are other smaller changes that the office probably cannot agree to. But the bigger issues are these. If you or your client insists on these, there can be no plea agreement. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here. And in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where we left off. All 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 back up with the email chain with Marie Vilafana and the prosecutors and Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers from the original prosecution in Florida. This email was sent by Jay Lefkowitz to Jeff Sloman and Alex Acosta was cc'd. This email was sent on November 28, 2007. Dear Jeff, I received your email yesterday and was a little surprised at the tone of your letter given the fact that we spoke last week and I had thought it was a very productive meeting. I was especially surprised given that your letter arrived on only the second day back to work and after the Thanksgiving holiday. And yet your demands regarding timing suggest that I have been sitting on my hands for days. You should know that the first time I learned about Judge Redacted selection of Pothurst and Josephsburg and indeed the first time I ever heard their names was in our meeting with you on Wednesday of last week. Nevertheless, I have now been able to confer with my client and we have determined that the selection of Pothurst is and Joseph Berg are acceptable to us, reserving, of course, our previously stated objections to the manner in which you have interpreted the section 2255 portion of the agreement. We do, however, strongly and emphatically object to your sending a letter to the alleged victims. Without fair opportunity to review and the ability to make objections to this letter, it is completely unacceptable that you would send it without without our consideration. Additionally, given that the U.S. attorney's office has made clear it cannot vouch for the claims of the victims, it would be incendiary and inappropriate for your office to send such a letter. Indeed, because it is a certainty that any such letter would immediately be leaked to the press, your actions will only have the effect of injuring Mr. Epstein and promoting spurious civil litigation directed at him. We believe it's entirely unprecedented and in any event inappropriate for the government to be the instigator of such lawsuits. Finally, we disagree with your view that you are required to notify the alleged victims pursuant to the justice for all act of 2004. First US Code 18, Section 2255. The relevant statute under the non prosecution agreement with for the settlement of civil Remedies does not have any connection to the justice for all Act. Section 2255 was enacted as part of a different statute. Second, the justice for All act refers to restitution and Section 2255 is not a restitution statute. It is a civil remedy. As you know, we had offered to provide a restitution fund for the alleged victims in this matter. However, that option was rejected by your office had that option been chosen, we would not object to your notifying the alleged victims at this point. At this juncture, however, we do not accept your contention that there is a requirement that the government notify the alleged victims of a potential civil remedy in the case. Accordingly, for all the reasons we have stated above, we respectfully and firmly object to your sending any letter whatsoever to to the alleged victims in this matter. Furthermore, if a letter is to be sent to these individuals, we believe we should have a right to review and make objections to that submission prior to it being sent to any alleged victim. We also request that if your office believes that I must send a letter to go to the alleged victims who still have not been identified to us, it should happen only after Mr. Epstein has entered his plea. This letter should then come from the attorney representative and not from the government. To avoid any bias. As you know, Judge Starr has requested a meeting with Assistant Attorney General Fisher to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the section 2225 component of the agreement. We're hopeful that this meeting will take place as early as next week. Accordingly, we respectfully request that we postpone our discussion on of sending a letter to the alleged victims until after that meeting. We strongly believe that rushing to send any letter out this week is not the wisest manner in which to proceed. Given that Mr. Epstein will not enter his plea for another few weeks, time is clearly not of the essence regarding any notification to the identified individuals. Thanks very much. J. The next email was sent by Jeff Sloman, and it was sent to Jay Lefkowitz. The United States has a statutory obligation, justice for all act of 2004, to notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion. Tomorrow will make one full week. Since you were formally notified of the selection. I must insist that the vetting process come to an end. Therefore, unless you provide me with a good faith objection to Judge redacted selection by COB tomorrow, November 28, 2007, I will authorize the notification of the victims. Should you give me the go ahead on Pothurst and Josephsburg selection by COB tomorrow, I will simultaneously send your draft of the letter. I intend to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 29th. Thanks, Jeff. Next email from Jeff Sloman to Jay Lefkowitz with Alex Acosta. CC'd Jay, please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner, but I was a little under the weather yesterday. Hope that you enjoyed your Thanksgiving. Regarding the issue of due diligence concerning Judge Redacted Selection, I'd like to make a few observations. First, Guy Lewis Second, is known for some time that Judge Redacted was making reasonable efforts to secure Redacted Pothurst and Bob Joseph Berg for the assignment. In fact, when I told you of Judge Redacted Selection during our meeting last Wednesday, November 21st, you and Professor Dershowitz seemed very comfortable and certainly not surprised with the selection. Pothurst and Joseph Berg are no strangers to nearly the entire Epstein defense team, including Guy Lewis, Lilianne Sanchez, Roy Black, and apparently Professor Dershowitz, who said he knew Mr. Joseph Berg from law school. Second, Pothurst and Joseph Berg have long standing stellar reputations for their legal acumen and ethics. It's hard for me to imagine how much more vetting needs to be done. Next email sent by Marie Vilafana to Gerald Lefcourt and CC to Jeff Sloman and Andrew Lori. Jerry, as per your discussion with U.S. attorney Acosta, I have attached the office's written counter proposal. If you have any questions regarding the terms, please do not hesitate to call. Next email from Marie VilaFANA to John McMillan, Andrew Osterbahn, agent Kuykendall and Jason Richards. Hi all. Here's a revised version of the indictment. We're still doing some proofreading, but I wanted to get some feedback before I start sending it through the chain of command. Can you let me know what you think? Next email is from Andrew Osterbahn to Marie Vilafana and this email was sent September 11, 2007. Will do. When do you plan to submit it? Next email from Marie Vilafana to Andrew Osterbahn on September 11, 2007. Probably sometime tomorrow. Just to Karen Atkinson to get a first read. Then it will go to Rolando and then up to Jeff. I'm still shooting for a 9:25 for an indictment date, assuming they don't take our counter counteroffer. In case you haven't heard, yesterday one of Epstein's lawyers countered with a 15 month in jail followed by 15 months community confinement, aka home confinement. And we counter countered with 20 months in jail followed by 10 months community confinement. Here is the agreement that was sent out. Thanks, Drew. Next email was sent by Andrew Osterbahn to Marie Vilafana. This email was sent on September 11, 2007. I had not heard. The counteroffering is unfortunate, but I suppose it's understandable. Let me know how it goes. Thanks, Marie. Next email from Marie Vilafana to Andrew Osterbahn September 13, 2007 hi, Drew. Sorry to bother you, but the plea negotiations are getting fast and furious. Epstein's lawyers are fixated on this idea of a victims fund rather than having the girls file separate 2255 actions. I know that the reason that they want to do this is not out of the goodness of their hearts, but to keep this stuff out of the public court files. But in some way it'll help the girls too. Do you know anything about how the fund in Alaska has worked out? Did all the victims consent or did the court just do it? Thank you for your help. I also turned in the indictment package to my immediate supervisor today, so I expect some edits back from her. But before it goes higher up the chain, if you had any thoughts, please let me know. Next email from Andrew Osterbahn to Marie Vilafana. And this one was sent on September 13, 2007. Thanks for more information, Marie. I'll get the details on the bomb arrangements from the prosecutors and get back to you tomorrow. I believe the girls agreed to the arrangement, but I'll confirm that I should have the indictment reviewed by then as well. Next email from Marie Vilafana to Andrew Osterbahn. Hi, Drew. I tracked down the AUSA in Alaska and he's sending me the trust agreement. And I'll let you know how things go in the morning. Next email from Marie Vilafana to someone whose name's redacted and CC to Andrew Lowry. Jay, it was nice seeing you again. Andy and I talk with Alex and Jeff. We're all satisfied in principle when with the agreement, but the office is uncomfortable with the recommended federal charge. Specifically, we're concerned about the effect of taking the position that Mr. Epstein's house is in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and we have no evidence of any assaults occurring either on Mr. Epstein's plane or offshore from his residence. We're hoping that you can find an alternative federal statute that can be used. I will also wait to hear from Jack Goldberger to discuss logistics. Thank you, Marie Vilafana. Next email from Jay Lefkowitz to Marie Vilafana. Andy, meant to copy you on my first attempt to respond to Marie. We appreciate the courtesy of today's meeting and your agreement and Alex's. We understand the concerns you are raising and will work over the next few days to come up with a mutually acceptable solution. I'll speak with you no later than Monday, and in the interim, we can come up with a solution. We will be in touch with you. Next email. From Jay Lefkowitz to Marie Vilafana on September 13, 2007 Marie, are you free to speak at 9am tomorrow? Next email from Marie Villefana to Jay Lefkowitz September 13, 2007 hi J. Yeah, I am. I've been spending some quality time with Title 18 looking for misdemeanors. Do you want to take a look at US Code 18, 403, US Code 18, 15, 12D and 47 USC 223A, 1 and B and we can talk about them tomorrow. I know that someone mentioned there being activity on an airplane. I just want to make sure that there is factual basis for the plea that the agents can confirm. I'm not sure exactly where I'll be tomorrow morning, so is it all right if I call you? Have a good morning. The next and final email from Jay Lefkowitz to Marie Vilafauna. Sounds good. I will be at home. Let's talk at 9am Already thinking about the same statutes. Look forward to speaking in the morning. Best, J. All right folks, so that completes this thread. But when I tell you that we haven't even scratched the surface yet, I mean it. We have so many documents to go over that it's not even funny. So we're going to continue to eat this elephant one bite at a time. And when we have slow news days like today, we're going to have more files added to the catalog. As for this one, well, all the information that goes with it can be found in the description box.