← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 16-19) (4/5/26)
00:58:29
The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein’s 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty....
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
What's up everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right back to the Epstein OIG report into the non prosecution agreement. See, the evidence does not clearly show why the terms of incarceration was reduced from 24 months to 20 months to 18 months. OPR reviewed the contemporaneous records and asked Acosta, Vilafana and Lori to to explain how the jail term Epstein would have to accept came to be reduced from two years to 18 months. Lori had no recollection of the process through which the term of incarceration was reduced. Vilafana and Acosta offered significantly different explanations. Vilafana told opr, we had this flip flop between is it going to be a state charge, Is it going to be a federal charge? Is it going to be a state charge, Is it, is it going to be a federal charge? And to get a federal charge, there was no way to do 24 months that made any sense. So somehow it ended up being 20 months and then it got to be 18 months. And these were calls that if I remember correctly, Jay Lefkowitz was having directly with Alex Acosta and Alex Acosta agreed to 18 months. Vilafana further explained to Regarding going from 24 months to 20 months, I recall a discussion that 24 months of federal time was really 20 months after gang time, so Epstein should be allowed to plead to 20 months in the state. Epstein's counsel represented that he wouldn't get gang time like that in the state, and someone above me agreed. Later, of course, as shown in the agreements, Epstein's counsel, Jay Lefkowitz got Alex to agree that Epstein should be allowed to earn gang time in the state. So the 20 months in the state became at least 17 months. Regarding going from 20 months to 18 months, this came from a negotiation between Epstein's counsel and and Andy or Alex, where the federal statutory max could only be 24 or 18. So 18 was agreed to. I also recall that after Epstein's counsel decided that they wanted to proceed with an NPA and only a state guilty plea, I asked Alex why we didn't return to the 20 months. Because the reason why we went to 18 months was because that was the only way to end up with a federal statutory maximum. However, a subsequent account of the history of negotiations with Epstein's attorneys drafted by Villofana for Acosta several weeks after the September 12, 2007 meeting with the state Attorney's office stated that a significant compromise reached at the meeting was a reduction in the amount of jail time from the originally proposed 24 months down to 18 months, which would be served at Palm Beach County Jail rather than a state prison facility. Acosta noted to OPR that Vilafana was engaged in a tough negotiation and he was willing to allow her the discretion to reduce the amount of incarceration time without him second guessing her. Acosta acknowledged that he clearly approved it at some point. Based on this record, OPR could not definitively determine when, how or by whom the decision was made to reduce the required term of imprisonment from 24 to 18 months. It's possible that the reduction was connected to Epstein's effort to achieve a result that would allow him to serve his time in a county facility, but it may also have resulted from the party's attempts to reach agreements on federal charges that would not result in a sentence of incarceration greater than what had been discussed with respect to state charges. In the end, the evidence shows that Acosta approved a reduced term of incarceration from 24 months to 18 months, and the USAO understood at the time that the state gain time requirement would further reduce the actual amount of time Epstein would spend incarcerated. D the parties continued to negotiate but primarily focus on a potential plea to federal charges. During the remainder of September, Villefana conducted plea negotiations and drafted the final NPA mainly with Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz. In a September 13, 2007 email to CEOs Chief Osterbahn, Vilafano reported that the plea negotiations were getting fast and furious. She said that the defense wanted to establish a victims fund through which Epstein could make payments to the victims rather than having the victims File individual section 2255 court actions for damages, which he speculated was to keep this stuff out of the public court files. According to the email documentation, by Friday, September 14, 2007, the parties had moved toward a hybrid federal plea agreement incorporating a plea to state charges which would allow Epstein to serve his sentence for all the charges concurrently in a federal prison. Vilafana informed Acosta, sloman, Lori and other colleagues the negotiations with Lefkowitz had resulted in a tentative agreement for Epstein to plead to two federal charges, her harassment to prevent a witness from Reporting a crime U.S. code 18 section 1512, which was then a one year misdemeanor and simple assault on an airplane U.S. code 18 section 113A and 5A six month misdemeanor. Vilafano reported that Lefkowitz put in a pitch for only 12 months. I put in a pitch that Epstein plead to 24 with a 20 month recommendation, and we decided that we would be stuck in with the 18 months. Later that day, Villefana sent to Lefkowitz a draft hybrid plea agreement and information mirroring the agreement in principle that she had described to her supervisors, but which she noted had not yet been blessed by them. The agreement provided that Epstein would plead guilty to the two federal charges for which the parties would jointly recommend that he would be sentenced to the statutory maximum penalty of 18 months followed by two years of supervised release, and that he would also plead guilty to the state registerable offense of procurement of minors to engage in prostitution, for which Epstein and the state Attorney's office would make a joint binding recommendation that he be sentenced to serve at least 20 months in prison, followed by 10 months of community control home confinement. Although not specified in the draft agreement, the negotiations evidently expected the federal and state terms would run concurrently. In addition to payment of restitution, Epstein would not oppose jurisdiction of victim status for any of the victims identified in the federal investigation at that point specified as numbering 40 who elected to file suit for damages under US code 18 section 2255. Laurie, however, quickly made clear that he was not in favor of that proposal. In response to Villefana's email about the potential federal charges of but after Villefana sent the proposal to Lefkowitz, Lori told her the assault charge sounds like a stretch and factually is sort of silly. Lori also told Sloman Acosta and another supervisor that he did not like the assault charge and believed that it would not go smooth and every judge Acosta responded, if we need, let's find a different charge. On Saturday, September 15, 2007, Villefana emailed Lefkowitz using her personal email address, reporting that she had gotten some negative reaction to the assault charge and suggesting a different factual scenario to support a federal charge. At this point, Sloman left on vacation and he informed Acosta and Villefana that in his absence, Lori had agreed to help finalize this Lori spent the following workweek at his new post at the department in Washington, D.C. but communicated with his USAO colleagues by phone and email. In a Sunday, September 16, 2007 email, Vilafana informed Lefkowitz that she had drafted a factual proffer to accompany a revised hybrid federal plea proposal. In that email, Vilafana also noted that she was considering filing charges in the Federal District Court in Miami, which will hopefully cut the press coverage significantly. This email received considerable attention 12 years later when it was made public during the CVRA litigation and and was viewed as evidence of the USAO's efforts to conceal the NPA from the victims. Vilafana, however, explained to OPR that she concerned that news media coverage would violate the victim's privacy. She told OPR, if the victims wanted to attend the plea hearing, I wanted them to be able to go into the courthouse without their faces being splashed all over the newspaper and that such publicity was less likely to happen if in Miami, where the press in general does not care about what happens in Palm Beach. Lefkowitz responded to Vilafana with a revised version of her latest proposed hybrid plea agreement in a document entitled Agreement Significantly, the defense proposal introduced two new provisions. The first related to four female assistants who had allegedly facilitated Epstein in his criminal scheme. The defense sought a government promise not to prosecute them and as well as certain other unnamed Epstein employees, and the promise to forego immigration proceedings against two of the female assistants. Epstein, fulfilling the terms and conditions of the agreement also precludes the initiation of any and all criminal charges which might otherwise in the future be brought against four named female assistants or any employee of a specific Epstein owned corporate entity for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation. Further, no immigration proceeding will be instituted against two name female assistants as a result of the ongoing investigation. The second new provision related to the USAO's efforts to obtain Epstein's computers. Epstein, fulfilling the terms and conditions of the agreement, resolves any and all outstanding legal process that have requested witness testimony and and or production of documents and or computers in relation to the investigation that is the subject of the agreement. Each legal process will be withdrawn upon the execution of the agreement and it will not be reissued absent reliable evidence of a violation of the agreement. Epstein and his counsel agree that the computers that are currently under the legal process will be safeguarded in their current condition by Epstein's counsel or their agents and until the terms and conditions of the agreements are fulfilled. Later that day, Villefana sent Lefkowitz a lengthy email to convey two options. Lori had the original proposal for a state plea, but with an agreement for an 18 month sentence or pleas to state charges and to federal obstruction of justice charges. Vilafana also told Lefkowitz she was willing to ask Acosta again to approve a federal plea to a five year conspiracy with Rule 11C binding recommendation for a 20 month sentence. Vilafana explained as to the timing, it's my understanding that Mr. Epstein needs to be sentenced in the state after he is sentenced in the federal case, but not that he needs to plead guilty and be sentenced after serving his federal time. Andy recommended that some of the timing issues be addressed only in the state agreement so that it isn't obvious to the judge that we are trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison purposes with regard to the prosecution of individuals other than Epstein. Vilafana suggested standard federal plea agreement language regarding the resolution of all criminal liability and I will mention co conspirators, but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge. Vilafana told OPR that she was willing to include a non prosecution provision for Epstein's co conspirators, who at the time she understood to be the four women named in the proposed agreement because the USAO was not interested in prosecuting those individuals if Epstein entered a plea. Vilafana told opr, we considered Epstein to be the top of the food chain and we wouldn't have been interested in prosecuting anyone else. She did not consider the possibility that Epstein might be trying to protect other unnamed individuals and no one, including the FBI case agents received raised that concern. Vilafana also told OPR that her reference to all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge related to her concern that if the plea agreement contained information about uncharged conduct, the court might ask for more information about the conduct and inquire why it had not been charged. And if the government provided such information, Epstein's attorneys might claim the agreement was breached with regard to immigration, Vilafana told OPR that the USAO generally did not take any position in plea agreements on immigration issues and that in this case there is no evidence that either of the two assistants who were foreign nationals had committed fraud in connection with their immigration paperwork. And I think that they were both in status so there wasn't any reason for them to be deported. As to whether the foreign nationals would be removable by virtue of having committed crimes, Vilafana told OPR she did not consider her role as seeking removal apart from from actual prosecution. Vilafana concluded her email to Lefkowitz by expressing disappointment that they were not closer to resolving this than it appears that we are and offering to meet the next workday on the agreement. 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 these items. I was hoping to work only a half day tomorrow to save my voice for Tuesday's hearing if necessary, but maybe we can set a time to meet if you want to meet off campus somewhere, that's fine. I will make sure that I have all the necessary decision makers present or on call as well. Villefana told OPR that she offered to meet Lefkowitz away from the USAO because conducting negotiations via email was inefficient and Vilafano wanted to have a meeting where she sat down and just finalized things. And what I meant by off campus is sometimes people feel better if you go to a neutral location for a face to face meeting. On the morning of Monday, September 17, 2007, the USAO supervisor who was taking over Lori's duties as manager of the West Palm beach office asked Vilafana for an update on the plea negotiations and she forwarded to him the email she had sent to Lefkowitz the previous afternoon. Vilafana told the manager, as you can see the there are a number of things in their last draft that were unacceptable. All of the loopholes that I sewed up that they tried to open. Shortly thereafter, Villefana alerted the new manager, Acosta and Lori, that she had just spoken with Lefkowitz, who advised that Epstein was leaning towards a plea to stay charges under a non prosecution agreement and she would be forwarding to Lefkowitz our last version of the non prosecution agreement. Acosta asked that Villefana make sure that they know it's only a draft and and reminded her that the form and language may need polishing. Vilafana responded, absolutely. There were a lot of problems with their last attempt. They tried to reopen all of the loopholes that I had sewn shut. Villefana sent to Lefkowitz the draft NPA that she had provided to Lefcourt on September 11, 2007, noting that it was the last version and would avoid him having to reinvent the wheel. She also updated the FBI case agents on the status of of negotiations, noting that she had told her chain of command that we are still on for the Sept. 25 meeting to bring charges no matter what. After receiving the draft npa, Lefkowitz asked Vilafana to provide for his review of factual proffer for a federal obstruction of justice charge and with that respect to the NPA option, asked if we will go that route, would you intend to make the deferred prosecution agreement public? Vilafana replied that while a federal plea agreement would be part of the court file and publicly accessible, the NPA would not be made public or filed with the court, but it would remain part of our case file. It probably would be subject to an FOIA Freedom of Information act request, but not something that we would distribute without compulsory process. Vilafana told OPR that she believed Epstein did not want the NPA to be made public because he did not want people to believe him to have committed a variety of crimes. As she explained to opr, Vilafano believed the NPA did not need to be disclosed in its entirety, but she anticipated notifying the victims about the NPA provisions relating to their ability to recover damages. Alright, we're going to wrap up this episode here and in the next episode we're going to pick up where we left off and that's with E the parties appear to reach agreement on on a plea to federal charges. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right back to the OIG report into the Jeffrey Epstein non prosecution agreement. The parties appear to reach agreement on a plea to federal charges. Negotiations continued the next day, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 responding to Vilafana's revised draft of the NPA, Lefkowitz suggested that Epstein plead to one federal charge with a 12 month sentence followed by a one year of supervised release with a requirement for home detention and two years of state probation with the first six months of the state sentence to be served under community control. Vilafana replied, I know that the U.S. attorney will not go below 18 months of prison jail time and I would strongly oppose the suggestion. Shortly thereafter, Villefana emailed Acosta, Lori and the incoming West Palm beach manager, hi all, I think that we may be near the end of our negotiations with Mr. Epstein and not because we have reached a resolution. As I mentioned Yesterday, I spent 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 was which never arrived. At that time they were leaning towards pleading only to state 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 in Zone A or Zone B. This morning Jay Lefkowitz called and said that I was correct, but if we could get Mr. Epstein down to 14 months then he thought he would be eligible. My response? Have him plead to two separate informations. On the first one he gets 12 months imprisonment and on the second he gets 12 months with six served in home confinement to run consecutively. I just received an email asking if Mr. Epstein could do 12 months imprisonment instead. As you can see, Mr. Epstein is having second thoughts about doing jail time. I would like to send Jay Lefkowitz an email stating that if we do not have a signed agreement by tomorrow at 5, negotiations will end. I have selected tomorrow at 5 because it gives them enough time to really negotiate an agreement if they are serious about it. And if not, it gives me a day but before the Jewish holiday to get prepared for Tuesday, September 25th when I plan to file charges and it gives the office sufficient time to review the indictment package. Do you concur? A few minutes later the incoming West Palm beach manager emailed Lori suggesting that Lori talked to Epstein and closed the deal. Within moments Lori replied to the manager with a copy to Villefana reporting that he had just spoken with Lefkowitz and agreed to to two federal obstruction charges, 24 month cap with non binding recommendation for 18 months. When Epstein gets out, he has to plead to state offenses including against minor registrable and then take one year house arrest, community confinement by reply email. Vilafana asked Lori to call her, but there is no record of whether they spoke. Defense Counsel offers new proposal substantially changing the terms of of the federal plea agreement which the USAO rejects. Approximately an hour after Lori's email reporting the deal he had reached with Lefkowitz, Lefkowitz sent Vilafana a revised draft plea agreement. Despite the agreement Laurie believed he and Lefkowitz had reached that morning, Lefkowitz proposal would have resulted in a 16 month federal sentence followed by eight months of supervised release served in the form of home detention. Lefkowitz also inserted a statement in his proposal explicitly prohibiting the USAO from requesting, initiating or encouraging immigration authorities to institute immigration proceedings against two of Epstein's female assistants. Vilafana circulated the defense proposed plea agreement to Lori and two other supervisors and expressed frustration that the new defense version incorporated terms that were completely different from what Jay just told Andy they would agree to. Vilafana also pointed out that the defense wants us to recommend an improper calculation on the sentencing guidelines and they added language waiving the preparation of a pre sentence investigation so he can keep all of his information confidential. I have already told Jay that the PSI language was unacceptable from our office of even greater significance. In a follow up email, Vilafana noted that the defense had removed both the requirement that Epstein plead to a registrable offense and the entire provision relating to monetary damages under U.S. code 18 section 2255. In the afternoon, Vilafana circulated her own proposed hybrid plea agreement, first internally to the management team with a note stating that it contains the 18.5 split that Jay and Andy agree to, and then to Lefkowitz regarding the prosecution of other individuals. She included the following this agreement resolves the federal criminal liability of the defendant and any co conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal conduct by those persons known to the USAO as of the date of this plea agreement, including but not limited to conspiracy to solicit minors to engage in prostitution. In her email to Lefkowitz transmitting the plea agreement, Vilafano wrote, could you share the attached draft with your colleagues? It is in keeping with Andes. Communicated to me was the operative deal. The U.S. attorney hasn't had a chance to review all the languages, but he agrees with it in principle. The West Palm beach manager and I will both be available at 2 one of my suggestions is going to be again that we all sit down together in the same room and including Barry Krisher and Lor Lana Bella Hovleck so we can hush out all of the still existing issues and get ourselves a signed document. Vilafana also emailed Acosta directly, telling him she planned to meet with Epstein's attorneys to work on the plea agreement and asking if Acosta would be available to provide final approval. Acosta replied, I don't think I should be part of negotiations. I'd rather leave it to you if that's okay. Acosta told OPR that absent truly exceptional circumstances, he believed it was important for him to not get involved in negotiations and added, you can meet like I did in September to reaffirm the position of the office and back your ausa, but ultimately I think your trial lawyer needs discretion to do their job. Vilafana told opr, however, that she did not understand Acosta to be giving her discretion to conduct the negotiations as she saw fit. Rather, she believed Acosta did not want to engage in face to face negotiations because he wanted to have an appearance of having sort of an arm's length from the deal. Vilafana replied to Acosta's that's fine. The West Palm beach manager and I will nail everything down. We just want to get a final blessing. Negotiations continue throughout the day. On Wednesday, September 19, 2007 with Vilafana and Lefkowitz exchanging emails from regarding the factual proffer for a plea and the scheduling of a meeting to finalize the plea agreement's terms. During the exchange, Vilafana made clear to Lefkowitz that the time for negotiating terms was reaching an end. I hate to have to be firm about this, but we need to wrap this up by Monday. I will not miss September 25th charging date when this has dragged on for several weeks already and then if things fall apart, be left in a less advantageous position than before the negotiations. I have an 82 page prosecution memo and a 53 page indictment sitting on the shelf since May. To engage in these negotiations there has to be an ending date and that date is Monday. Early that afternoon, Laurie, who participated in the week's negotiations from his new Post in the department in Washington, D.C. asked Vilafano to furnish him with the last draft of the plea agreement she had sent to the defense counsel, and she provided him with an 1812 split draft that she had sent to Lefkowitz the prior afternoon. After reviewing the draft, Lori told Vilafauna it was a good job, but he questioned certain provisions, including whether the USAO's agreement to suspend the investigation and hold all legal process in abeyance should be in the plea agreement. Vilafana told Lori that she added that paragraph and at the insistence of the defense and opined, I don't think it hurts us. Vilafana explained to OPR that she held this view because Alex and people above me had already made the decision that if the case was resolved we weren't going to get the computer equipment. At 3:44pm that afternoon, Lefkowitz emailed a redline version of the federal plea agreement showing his new revisions and noted that he was working on a deferred prosecution agreement because it may well be that we cannot reach agreement here. The defense redline version required Epstein to plead guilty to a federal information charging two misdemeanor counts of an attempt to intentionally harass a person to prevent testimony, the pending state indictment charging solicitation of prostitution, and the state information charging one count of coercing a person to become a prostitute in violation of Florida Statute Section 796.04 without regard to the age. Neither of the proposed state offenses required sexual offender registration. Epstein would need to serve an 18 month sentence and a concurrent 60 months on probation on the state charges. The red line version again deleted the provisions relating to damages under U.S. code 18 section 2255 and replaced it with the provisions requiring creation of a trust administered by the state court. It retained language proposed by Vilafana providing that plea agreement resolves the federal criminal liability of the defendant and any co conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal conduct by those persons known to the USAO as of the date of this plea agreement, but also reinserted the provision promising not to prosecute Epstein's assistance and the statement prohibiting the USAO from requesting, initiating or or encouraging immigration proceedings. It also included a provision stating the government's agreement to forego a sentence an investigation and promise the government to suspend the investigation and withdraw all pending legal processes all right, we're going to end this episode right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with G Vilafana and Lori recommend ending negotiations, but Acosta urges that they try to work it out. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right back to the OIG report that was filed in relation to the Jeffrey Epstein non prosecution agreement. Vilafana and Lori recommend ending negotiations, but Acosta urges that that they try to work it out. In the late afternoon of Wednesday, September 19, 2007, Vilafana expressed her increasing frustration to her supervisors. She emailed the defense redline version of the plea agreement to Lori and the incoming West Palm beach manager, identifying all the provisions she had specifically discussed with the defense team and rejected that they had reinserted into the agreement. Vilafana opined this is not a good faith negotiation, but Laurie responded that he would reach out to Alex to discuss. Laurie immediately emailed Acosta the I looked at the latest draft from Jay Lefkowitz and I must agree with Marie based on my own conversations with him. His draft is out of left field. He claims to orally agree to our terms and then sends us a document that is the opposite. I suggest we simply tell him that his counteroffer is rejected and that we intend to move forward with our case, acosta replied. Why don't we just call him and tell him 1 you agree and then change things? 2. That's not acceptable and it's in bad faith. Stop it or we'll indict. 3. Try to work it out. It seems that we are close and it's worth trying to overcome what has to be painfully annoying negotiating tactics. Acosta told the OPR that he recognized this negotiation was a pain, but if it was right position, the fact that you've got annoying counsel on the other side to doesn't make it less of a right position. You tell them to stop being annoying, you try to work it out and if not, then you indict. In response to Acosta's instructions, Lori responded, okay, will do. He also forwarded to Acosta the latest version of the USAO draft hybrid plea agreement that Vilafana had sent to Lefkowitz the previous day, which Laurie had requested and obtained from Vilafana earlier that afternoon. Meanwhile, Villefana sent a Laurie and his successor West Palm beach manager, a draft message she proposed to send to Lefkowitz with her objections to the defense revisions, explaining, I know that you keep saying he is going to plead and he will plead if we cave on everything, but I really do not think that Mr. Epstein is going to engage in serious negotiations until he sees an indictment and it shows up in mag Federal Magistrate Judge court. She suggested charging Epstein on a federal conspiracy charge and and if he refused to plead to the offence, superseding with additional charges and going to trial. She complained that after seven weeks of negotiations we are just spinning our wheels. Her proposed email to Lefkowitz detailed all of the objectionable provisions in his draft and concluded, if you or your client insist on these, there can be no plea agreement. H Acosta edits the federal plea agreement and Vilafana sends a vinyl version to the defense the next day, Thursday, September 20, 2007, Vilafana emailed assistant State Attorney Belihovlik and informed her our deadline is Monday evening for a signed agreement and arraignment in the federal system. At this time things don't look promising anyway, but I will keep you posted. In their latest draft, they changed what they agreed to plead to in the state from solicitation of minors for prostitution, a registrable offense, to to forcing adults into prostitution, a non registerable offense. We will not budge on this issue, so it is looking unlikely that we will reach a mutually acceptable agreement. If that changes, I will let you know Acosta sent Lori some thoughts about the USAO version of the proposed hybrid federal plea agreement and received from Lori the evening before, commenting that it seems very straightforward and we are not changing our standard charging language for the defense. Noting that the draft was prepared for his signature, Acosta told Laurie that he did not typically sign plea agreements and this should not be the first, adding that the USAO should only go forward if the trial team supports and signs this agreement. Laurie forwarded the email to Villefana with a transmittal message simply I think Alex's changes are all good ones. Please try to incorporate his suggestions and change the signature block to your name and send the final to Jay Lori also noted to Acosta and Vilafana that he believed the defense would want to go back to the initial offer of a state plea with a prosecution agreement. When Vilafana sent the revised plea agreement to Lefkowitz later that afternoon, she advised him that if the defense wanted to return to the original offer of a state plea, only the draft NPA she had sent to him on September 17, 2007 would the defense rejects the federal plea agreement, returns to the NPA state only resolution and begins opposing the sexual offender registration requirement after having spent days negotiating the federal charges to be included in the plea agreement. By the afternoon of September 20, 2007, the defense rejected the federal plea option and the parties resumed negotiations over the details of the npa, calling for Epstein to plead to only state charges. Through multiple emails and attempts unsuccessful to speak directly with Acosta and other supervisors, defense attorneys vigorously fought the USAO's insistence that Epstein plead to a state charge requiring sexual offender registration. After receiving the federal plea agreement, Lefkowitz spoke with Villafana. She reported to Acosta and Lori that Lefkowitz told her that the defense was back to doing the state charges only agreement and wanted until the middle of the following week to work out the details, but that she had already told the defense counsel that we need a signed agreement by tomorrow Friday or we're filing charges. On Tuesday, Lefkowitz emailed Vilafana about the draft NPA that she had sent to him, pointing out that it called for a 20 month jail sentence followed by 10 months of community control rather than 18 months in jail and 12 under community control and to ask if the USAO had any flexibility on the 2255 procedure. The 18 and 12 has already been agreed to by our office so that is not a problem on the issue about 18 U.S. code 2255 we seem to be miles apart. Your most recent version only had me binding the girls to a trust fund if administered by the state court, but also promising that they will give up their section 2255 rights. I reviewed the email that I sent you on Sunday with the comments on some of your other changes. In the context of the non prosecution agreement, the office may be more willing to be more specific about not pursuing charges against others. However, as I stated on Sunday, the office cannot and will not bind immigration. Also, your timetable will need to move up Significantly, as State Attorney Barry Krisher said in our meeting last week, his office can put together a plea agreement and an information and get you all before the state judge on a change of plea within a day. Vilafana alerted Kreisher that evening that negotiations were not going very well and the defense counsel changed their minds again and they only want to plead to stay charges, not concurrent state and federal. She added that if we cannot reach an agreement then I need to charge the case on Tuesday, September 25th and I will not budge from that date. In response to Vilafana's report of her conversation with Lefkowitz about the defense preference for a state charges only agreement, Lori alerted her that he wants to get out of the sexual offender registration, which we should not agree to. Lori emailed Acosta, I think Jay will try to talk you out of the registerable offense regardless of the merits of his argument. In order to get us down in time, they made us an offer that included pleading to an offense against a minor, encouraging a minor into prostitution, and touted that we should be happy because it was registrable. For that reason alone, I don't think we should consider allowing them to come down from their offer either on the issue or on the time of incarceration. Lefkowitz attempted to reach Acosta that night, but Acosta directed Vilafana to return the call and told Lori that that he did not want to open a back channel with defense counsel. Lori instructed Vilafana, you can tell Jay that Alex will not agree to a non registration offense. On the morning of Friday, September 21, 2007, Vilafana emailed Acosta informing him that it looks like we will be filing charges against Mr. Epstein. On Tuesday, reporting that the charging package was being reviewed by the West Palm beach manager and asking if anyone in the Miami office needed to review it, Vilafana also alerted Lori that she had spoken that morning to Lefkowitz, who was waffling about Epstein pleading to a state charge that required sexual offender registration, and she noted that she would confer with Krisher and Belihovlick to make sure the defense doesn't try to do an end. Around that same morning, Epstein attorney Sanchez, who had not been involved in negotiations for several weeks, emailed Sloman, advising I want to finalize the plea deal and there is only one issue outstanding and I do not believe that Alex has read all the defense submissions that would assist in his determination on this point. Upon resolution, we will be prepared to sign as soon as today from his out of town vacation. Sloman forwarded the email to Acosta who replied, enjoy your vacation working with Marie on this. Sloman also forwarded Sanchez's email to Lori and asked, do you know what she's talking about? Lori responded that Sanchez has not been in any negotiations. Don't even engage with yet another cook the USAO agrees not to criminally charge potential co conspirators. Lefkowitz in the meantime sent Vilafana a revised draft NPA that proposed an 18 month sentence in the county jail followed by 12 months of community control, and restored the provision for a trust fund for the disbursement to an agreed upon list of individuals who seek reimbursement by filing suit pursuant to U.S. code 18 section 2255. This defense draft retained the provision promising not to criminally charge Epstein's four female assistants and unnamed employees of the specific Epstein owned corporate entity, but also extended the provision to any potential co conspirator for any criminal charge arising from the ongoing federal investigation. The language had evolved from similar language that Vilafana had included in the USAO's earlier proposed draft federal plea agreement. Lefkowitz also again included the sentence precluding the government from requesting, initiating or recommending immigration proceedings against the two assistants who were foreign nationals. Villefana said to Lefkowitz her own revised npa, telling him that it was her attempt at combining our thoughts, but it had not been approved by the office yet. She inserted solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, a registrable offense, as the charge to which Epstein would plead guilty, proposed a joint recommendation for a 30 month sentence divided into 18 months in the county jail and 12 months of community control, and amended the 225 provision. Vilafana's revision retained the provision superseding the investigation and holding all legal process in abeyance, and she incorporated the non prosecution provision while slightly altering it to apply to any potential co conspirator of Epstein, including the four named assistants, and deleting mention of the corporate entity employees. Finally, Vilafana deleted mention of the immigration proceedings but advised in her transmittal email that we have not and don't plan to ask immigration proceedings to be initiated later that day. Vilafana alerted Lori, who had arrived in Florida from Washington D.C. early that afternoon and the new West Palm beach manager copying her first line supervisor and co counsel that she had included language that defense counsel had requested regarding promises not to prosecute other people and commented, I don't think it hurts us. There is no documentation that Lori, the West Palm beach manager or anyone else expressed disagreement with Vilafana's assessment. Rather, within a few minutes, Vilafana resent the email, adding that defense counsel now persisting in including an immigration waiver in the agreement, to which Lori responded, no way. We don't put that sort of thing in a plea agreement. Vilafana replied to Lori, indicating that she would pass that along to defense counsel and adding, any other thoughts? When Lori gave no further response, Vilafana informed defense counsel that Lori had rejected the proposed immigration language. OPR questioned the subjects about the USAO's agreement not to prosecute any potential non co conspirators. Laurie did not recall why the USO's agreement to it, but he speculated that he left the provision in the NPA because he believed at the time that it benefited the government in some way. In particular, Laurie conjectured that the promise not to prosecute any potential co conspirators protected victims who had recruited others and thus potentially were co conspirators in Epstein's scheme. Lori also told I bet the answer was that we weren't going to charge Epstein's accomplices because Acosta didn't really want to charge Epstein in federal court. Sloman similarly said that he had the impression that the non prosecution provision was meant to protect named co conspirators who were also victims in a sense of Epstein's conduct. Although later press coverage of the Epstein case focused on Epstein's connections to prominent figures and suggested that the non prosecution provision protected these individuals, Sloman told OPR that that it never occurred to him that the reference to potential co conspirators was directed towards any of the high profile individuals who were at the time or subsequently linked with Epstein. Acosta did not recall the provision or any other discussions about it. He speculated that if he read the non prosecution provision, he likely assumed that Villefana and Laurie had thought this through and addressed it for a reason. The West Palm beach manager who had only limited involvement at this stage that told OPR that the provision was highly unusual and he had no clue why the USAO agreed to it. Vilafana told OPR that apart from the women named in the npa, the investigation had not developed evidence of any other potential co conspirators so we wouldn't be prosecuting anybody else, so why not include it? I just didn't think that there was anybody that it would cover. She conceded, however, that it did not catch the fact that it could be read as as broadly as people have since read it. Alright, we're gonna wrap up right there and in the next episode we're gonna pick up with Part K. The USAO rejects defense efforts to eliminate the Sexual Offender Registration requirement All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right back to the Jeffrey Epstein OIG Report into the npa. The USAO rejects defense efforts to eliminate the Sexual offender registration requirement on the afternoon of Friday, September 21, 2007, State Attorney Krisher informed Vilafana that Epstein's counsel had contacted him and Epstein was ready to agree to all the terms of the NPA except for sexual offender registration. According to Krischer, defense counsel had proposed that registration be deferred as and that Epstein register only if state or federal law enforcement felt at any point during his service of the sentence that he needed to do so. Krischer noted that he had reached out to Acosta about this proposal but had not heard back from him. Vilafana responded, I think Alex is calling you now. Vilafana told OPR that to her knowledge, Acosta called Krisher to tell him that the registration was not a negotiable term. Later that afternoon, Vilafana emailed Krischer for information about the amount of gain time Epstein would earn in state prison. Vilafana explained in her email that she wanted to include a provision in the NPA specifying that Epstein will actually be in jail at least a certain number of days to make sure he doesn't try to convince someone with the Florida prison authorities to let him out early. Krischer responded that under the proposal, as it then stood, the Epstein would serve 15 months. He also told Vilafana that a plea to a registrable offense would not prevent Epstein from serving his time at the Stockade, the local minimum security detention facility. At some point that day, Acosta spoke with Lefkowitz by phone regarding the need for Epstein to plead to a registerable offense. Throughout the weekend, with Vilafana's Monday deadline looming, defense counsel pressed hard to eliminate the the sexual offender requirement. On Saturday, September 22, 2007, Sanchez sent a series of emails to Lori. In the first, she provided details from a press report about a Florida public official who the previous day had pled guilty to child sex abuse charges and was sentenced to a term of probation. She noted that she spoke to Matt Menshel and asked Lori to call her. Two hours later, she sent Lori a second lengthy email so strongly objecting to the registration requirement and outlining all arguments against registration as a sexual offender in this case. In this email, Sanchez claimed that there had been a miscommunication during the September 12, 2007 meeting and that we only agreed to the solicitation with minors because we believed and Krisher and Behovelik confirmed it was not registrable. Sanchez complained that lifetime sexual offender registration was was a life sentence that was uncalled for, does not make sense, and was inappropriate to impose simply because the FBI wants it in return for all their efforts. She listed numerous reasons why Epstein should not have to register, including his lack of a prior record of sexual offenses, the lack of any danger of recidivism, the ease with which he could be tracked without registering, and it would be virtually impossible to comply with four separate state record registration requirements. A few minutes later, Sanchez sent Lefcourt's phone number to Lori in case you want to speak to him directly. In another email sent less than two hours later, Sanchez told Lori she was writing again because you are a very fair person. This resolution in the Epstein case is not reasonable. It is a result of a misunderstanding. At a meeting, she stated that Epstein's attorneys had consistently emphasized their goal of 18 months in a federal camp and everyone knew that a registerable offense precluded a camp designation, sanchez added. Therefore, it would have been wholly inconsistent with the primary goal of Epstein's safety to lightly concede to registration. At that meeting, Sanchez concluded, imposing a life sentence on him is not something anyone will eventually be proud of. Please reconsider and help me get a fair result. Lori responded to none of Sanchez's emails, but did reach out to Acosta, who for a phone conversation by email. Late that night at 10:26pm Lefkowitz asked Lori to phone him. The next day, Lefkowitz emailed Acosta with copies to Sloman Lori and Vilafana to follow up on a conversation Friday asking Acosta again to reconsider the requirement that Epstein plead to a registrable offense. Lefkowitz wrote that there had been a misunderstanding at the September 12, 2007 meeting. Before the meeting, Mr. Krisher and Ms. Belihovlick, a sex prosecutor for 13 years, told us that solicitation of a minor is not a registrable offense. However, as it turned out, it is a registrable offense and our discussion at that meeting was based on a mistaken assumption. We suggest that Mr. Epstein enter two pleas, one to the indictment and a second to a non registerable charge. Lefkowitz set forth arguments that similar to those Sanchez had presented to Lori as to why registration based on the facts alleged in this case simply does not make sense. In the event that Acosta did not agree to their proposed charges, Lefkowitz offered as an alternative to stipulate that the state offense would constitute a prior sexual offense for purposes of enhanced recidivist sentencing should Epstein ever again commit a federal sex offense against minors. As Lefkowitz further argued, by accepting this option you would be substituting the certainty of recidivist sentencing for the humiliation of registration. Emails reflect that early that afternoon, Acosta, Lori and Vilafana discussed the matter in a conference call. Lefkowitz also sent a revised version of the NPA to Villafana that omitted identification of the charge to which Epstein would plead guilty. Later that day, Lefkowitz emailed Acosta, I got a call from Marie who said you had rejected our proposal. Does that mean you are not even prepared to have Epstein commit now to plead to the registrable offense near the end of his 18 month sentence and then be sentenced to 12 months community control for that charge? I thought that was exactly what you proposed Friday, although you wanted but were not able to do it with some kind of federal charge, but that still gives you a registrable offense, 30 months total and 18 months in jail. How can that not satisfy you while still ensuring that Epstein is not unduly endangered in jail? Acosta responded, I do not mean to be difficult, but our negotiations must take place with the AUSAs assigned to the case. Acosta added that he had spoken with Lori and Vilafana and they had discretion to proceed as they believed just inappropriate. Acosta copied Villefana and she emailed Acosta to thank him for the support. L the Defense adds a confidentiality clause. Throughout that Sunday evening, Lefkowitz had numerous email exchanges with Vilafana and apparently a conference call with Lori, who was returning to Washington, D.C. and Vilafana. Later that evening, Lefkowitz sent Vilafana a new version of the NPA that for the first time included a confidentiality term in it. Is the intention of the parties to this agreement that it is not to be disseminated or disclosed except pursuant to court order in the event the government must disclose the agreement. In response to a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information act, the government agrees to provide Epstein notice before the disclosure of this agreement. After making additional revisions, Villefana sent this NPA to Acosta and Lori as the final version, asking Acosta to let her know what he thought of it. Among her revisions, she changed the confidentiality provision to the the parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making its disclosure. 7 September 24, 2007 Acosta makes final edits and the NPA is signed the contemporaneous emails show that Vilafana continued to update Acosta as the parties negotiated the final language and that Acosta reviewed and edited the NPA. Shortly after midnight on Monday, September 24, 2007, Acosta sent Vilafana small edits to the final NPA she had sent to him. Among his changes was language modifying provisions that appeared to require the state's attorney's office or the state's court to take specific actions, such as requiring the Epstein enter his guilty plea by a certain date, Acosta explained in his email. I'm not comfortable with requiring the state attorney to enter into a joint sentencing recommendation or requiring a state court to stick with our timeline for entry of the guilty plea in sentencing. Accordingly, Acosta substituted language that required Epstein alone to make a binding sentencing recommendation to the state court and required Epstein to use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced by the specified dates. Acosta also instructed Vilafana to restore a reference to Epstein's wish to reach global resolution of his state and federal criminal liabilities. Laurie, who had returned to the department in Washington, D.C. and had a phone conversation with Lefkowitz and sent additional comments on the final draft to Acosta and Vilafana. Vilafana sent a new revision incorporating edits from Acosta and Lori to Lefkowitz. Later that morning on the afternoon of September 24, 2007, Vilafana circulated the new final version of the NPA to Acosta, Sloman, Lori, and other supervisors and asked Lefkowitz to send her the signed agreement. After Lefkowitz electronically transmitted to Vilafana a copy of the NPA signed by Epstein, she emailed her immediate supervisor and her co counsel. They have scanned and emailed the signed agreement. It's done. In his transmittal email, Lefkowitz asked Vilafana to please do whatever you can to keep this from becoming public. Vilafana responded, I have forwarded your message only to Alex, Andy and the West Palm beach manager. I don't anticipate it going any further than that. When I receive the originals, I will sign and return one copy to you. The other will be placed in the case file which will be kept confidential since it also contains identifying information about the girls. When we reach an agreement about the attorney representative for the girls, we can discuss what I can tell them and the girls about the agreement. I know that Andy promised Chief Ryder an update when a resolution was achieved. The West Palm beach manager is calling, but he knows not to tell Chief Ryder about the money issue, just about what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and the amount of time that he has agreed to. He is also telling Chief Ryder not to disclose the outcome to anyone. OPR questioned Vilafana about this email. She explained that she generally kept confidential the terms of the resolution of any case. She understood that the way that the Epstein case was resolved needed to remain confidential. But but the victims could be informed about what happened because the NPA's terms they needed to know what the agreement was about. Vilafana emailed the West Palm beach manager asking him to tell Palm Beach Chief Ryder the good news, but leave out the part about damages and explain that she wanted to meet with the victims herself to explain how the damage provision would work. Vilafana also told him that Lori had asked that Ryder share information about the NPA only with the Palm beach detective who had led the state investigation of Epstein. Vilafana forwarded to Acosta, Lorre and the West Palm beach manager Lefkowitz email asking that the USAO try to keep the NPA from becoming public. Acosta responded that the agreement already binds us not to make public except as required by law under the Freedom of Information act and asked what more does he want? Vilafano replied, my guess is that if we tell anyone else, like the police chief or FBI or the girls, that we ask them not to disclose. Soon thereafter, Acosta emailed Lori, Vilafana and the West Palm beach manager to set up a call to discuss who we tell and how much, adding, nice job with a difficult negotiation. The final NPA is signed by Epstein. His attorneys left court and Sanchez and Vilafana contain the following pertinent provisions. Charges Epstein would plead guilty to the pending Palm beach county indictment plus one count of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, a registrable offense sentence. The parties would make a joint binding recommendation for a 30 month sentence divided as consecutive terms of 12 months and 6 months in the county jail without opportunity for withholding, adjudication or sentencing and without community control or probation, followed by 12 months of community control damages as long as the identified victims proceed exclusively under US Code 18, Section 2255. Epstein will not contest federal court jurisdiction or the victim's status as victims. The USAO would provide to Epstein a list of individuals that had identified as victims. The usao, with the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, would select an attorney representative for the victims who whom Epstein would pay. Epstein would make his best efforts to enter the guilty plea and be sentenced by October 26, 2007. The USAO had no objections to Epstein self reporting to begin serving his sentence by January 4, 2008. The USAO would not initiate criminal charges against any potential co conspirator of Epstein, including four name Personal assistance Other Epstein was obligated to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's office to ensure compliance with this agreement. Epstein waived his right to appeal. Epstein agreed that he would not be afforded any benefit with respect to gain time or other rights, opportunities and benefits not available to any other inmate. The federal investigation would be suspended and all pending legal processes held in abeyance unless and until Epstein violated any term of the agreement. Evidence requested by or directly related to the pending legal process, including certain computer equipment, would be kept inviolate until all the NPA terms had been satisfied. The USAO would be required to notify Epstein of any alleged breach of the agreement within 90 days of the expiration of the term of home confinement and would be required to initiate prosecution within 60 days thereafter. The parties anticipated that the agreement would not be made part of any public record and if the USAO received a Freedom of Information act request or compulsory process commanding disclosure of the agreement, it would provide notice to Epstein before making any disclosure. That evening, Lefkowitz emailed Lori to express concerns about the notification he understood would be given to Chief Reiter stating, I am very concerned about leaks unduly prejudicing Jeffrey Epstein in the media. He added, I have enjoyed working with you on this matter. Laurie responded with an assurance that writer notification was only so he does not find out about it in the paper. And he concluded, I enjoyed it as well. Mr. Epstein was fortunate to have such excellent representation. Alright, we're going to wrap up this episode here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with post NPA negotiations. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.