← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 20-23) (4/5/26)
00:45:42
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 going to get right back to the OIG report on the Jeffrey Epstein NPA Part 8 Post NPA negotiations Almost immediately after the NPA was signed, conflicts arose about its terms and the difficult negotiation process began anew. The USAO quickly realized that there were numerous issues concerning the monetary damages provision that were not resolved in the npa, and the parties differed in their interpretations of the section 22555 provision, in particular the role and duties of the attorney representatives for the victims. As negotiations regarding the damages provision continued, the defense was able to delay having Epstein enter his guilty plea in state court. A September through October 2007 Sloman's concerns about selection of an attorney representative lead to a proposed NPA addendum. The first controversy centered on the appointment of an attorney representative for the victims. Initially, Vilafana reached out to private Attorney, who was one of several suggested to her for that role. Vilafana notified Lefkowitz that she was recommending the attorney to serve as the victim's representative and suggested a phone conference to discuss that information the USAO could disclose to the attorney about the case. Vilafana told Lefkowitz that she had never met the attorney, but he had been recommended by a good friend in our Appellate section and by one of the district judges in Miami. Over the next few days, Vilafana exchanged messages with the attorney about the possibility of his serving as the attorney representative. She also exchanged emails with Lefkowitz, passing along procedural questions raised by the attorney. By the time Lori had fully transitioned to his detail at the department's Criminal Division, the Sloman, who had been on vacation during the week the NPA was finalized, returned to the office, reviewed the final agreement, and immediately expressed his disapproval of the provision authorizing the USAO to select an attorney representative for the victims, which he believed might raise the appearance of a conflict of interest. Instead, he proposed that a special master make the selection. Although evidently frustrated by Sloman's belated proposal, the Vilafana conveyed to Lefkowitz the suggestion that a special master be appointed to select the attorney representative. Rather than having the USAO make the selection, she provided Lefkowitz a proposal regarding the special master's responsibilities along with a draft letter to send to the special master explaining the procedure for selecting an attorney representative. Lefkowitz objected to this proposal in a letter to Villefana, pointing out that the NPA did not provide for the appointment of a special master More importantly, Lefkowitz used the discussion of the Special Master as an opening to press for other alterations to the language of the NPA or at least to its interpretation. Focusing on the Attorney representative, Lefkowitz argued that the attorney's role should be viewed as limited to negotiating settlements and that the attorney was precluded from filing lawsuits on behalf of the victims of who could not reach a negotiated settlement with Epstein. Lefkowitz proposed the selected attorney should evaluate the claims of each identified individual, negotiate a total fund amount with Mr. Epstein, then distribute the monies based on the strength of each case. For those identified individuals who elect not to settle with Mr. Epstein, they may proceed on their own, but by doing so they would not be suing under section 2255 as contemplated by the NPA and and therefore may not continue to be represented by the selected attorney. Lefkowitz also objected to Villefana's draft letter to the Special Master asserting that it was essential for the defense to participate in crafting a mutually acceptable communication to the victims. Going further, Lefkowitz claimed that any contact between the USAO and the victims about the Section 2255 provision would violate the agreement's confidentiality provision. Lefkowitz admonished the government not to contact the victims to inform them of the resolution of the case including the appointment of the selected attorney and the settlement process. Vilafana forwarded Lefkowitz letter to Sloman complaining that the defense interpretation of section 2255 procedure violated the clear language of the NPA and asking can I please just indict him? Days later Sanchez emailed Sloman and then sent a follow up letter asking asking that Sloman help resolve the issue regarding the attorney Representative's role and arguing that Epstein never had intended by signing the NPA to promise to pay fees for the victim's civil lawsuits in the event a settlement could not be reached. When Vilafana explained to Sloman her views on Sanchez's arguments, Sloman responded, I suggest that you communicate your proposal back to Sanchez. The more voices they hear, the more wedges they try to drive between us. Vilafana agreed, noting that there are so many of them over there I'm afraid we are getting triple teamed. Vilafana sent Sanchez a letter regarding the roles of the Special Master and Attorney Representative. The next day, October 10, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a six page letter to Acosta as a follow up to our conversation yesterday, expressing serious disagreements with Vilafana's view of the process for victims to claim Section 2255 damages of under the NPA. Lefkowitz reiterated the defense position that the attorney representative's role was meant to be limited to negotiating settlements for the victims rather than pursuing litigation. Lefkowitz claimed that a requirement that Epstein pay the victims legal fees incurred from contested litigation would trigger profound ethical problems and that the attorney representative would have an incentive to reject settlement offers in order to incur more fees. In addition, Lefkowitz rejected Vilafana's view that Epstein had waived the right to challenge Section 2255 liability as to the victims who did not want to settle their claims and contended that any such victim will have to prove, among other things, that they are victims under the enumerated statutes. Finally, Lefkowitz again argued that the USAO should not discuss the settlement process with the victims who were to be identified as eligible for settlement under 2255. Ms. Vilafana proposes that either she or federal agents will speak with the victims regarding the settlement process. We do not think it is the government's place to be co counsel to the victims, nor should the FBI be their personal investigators. Neither federal agents nor anyone from your office should contact the victims to inform them of the resolution of the case, including appointment of the attorney representative and and the settlement process. Not only would that violate the confidentiality of the agreement, but Mr. Epstein will also have no control over what is communicated to the victims. At this most critical stage, we believe it is essential that we participate in crafting mutually acceptable communication to the victims. We further believe that communication between your office or your case agents and the victims might well violate rule be of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The powers of the Federal Grand Jury should not, even in appearance, be utilized to advance the interests of a party to a civil lawsuit, lefkowitz concluded. I look forward to resolving these open issues with you during our 4:30 call today. Vilafano was at the time on sick leave in Sloman and Acosta exchanged emails about crafting an addendum to the NPA to address the method of appointing an attorney representative and to articulate the representative's duties. The next day, October 11, 2007 Sloman exchanged emails with Lefkowitz about the text of a proposed addendum. October 12, 2007 Acosta and defense attorney Lefkowitz meet for breakfast. On the morning after his scheduled afternoon phone call with Lefkowitz, Acosta exchanged emails with Lefkowitz arranging to meet for breakfast the following day. On October 12, 2007 at a Marriott hotel in West Palm Beach. Contemporaneous records show that Acosta was previously scheduled to be in Palm beach for a Press event on October 11th and to speak at the Palm Beach County Bench Bar Conference the following midday, and that he stayed overnight at the Marriott. However, as with Vilafana's publicly released emails to Lefkowitz, this meeting between Acosta and Lefkowitz drew criticism. When the media learned of it during the CVRA litigation, it was seen either as further evidence of the USAO's willingness to meet with Epstein's attorneys while simultaneously ignoring the victims, or as a meeting at which Acosta made secret agreements with the defense. Two letters written later in 2007 refer to the breakfast meeting. In a December 2007 letter to Sanchez, Acosta stated that he had Sua Sponti proposed the addendum to Mr. Lefkowitz at an October meeting in Palm beach, an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection process. In an October 23, 2007 letter from Lefkowitz to Acosta less than two weeks after the breakfast meeting, Lefkowitz represented that during the meeting, Acosta assured me that the USAO would not intervene with the State Attorney's Office regarding this matter or contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants as and their respective counsel in this matter, and that neither the USAO nor the FBI would intervene regarding the sentence Mr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State so long as the sentence does not violate state law. However, two days after receiving this letter, Acosta revised a response letter drafted by Sloman, adding the term inaccurate to describe Lefkowitz claims that Acosta had promised not to intervene with the State Attorney's office, contact individual witnesses or claimants, or intervene regarding Epstein's sentence. The draft response stated such a promise equates to the imposition of a gag order. Our office cannot and will not agree to this. Acosta told OPR that he did not remember the breakfast meeting, but he speculated that the meeting may have been prompted by defense complaints that Villefana had recommended her boyfriend's partner to serve as the attorney representative. Acosta said that the way this was reported in the press was that I negotiated the NPA over breakfast, which was inaccurate because the NPA had been signed weeks before the breakfast meeting. When asked about Lefkowitz description of their breakfast meeting discussion, Acosta told OPR that there were several instances in which Lefkowitz and other defense counsel mischaracterized something he or an AUSA said in a way that was misleading. Emails show that immediately after the breakfast, Acosta phoned Sloman, who who then emailed to Lefkowitz a revision to the addendum language they had been negotiating, and who also later reported to Vilafana that Lefkowitz suggested revision had been rejected. Other emails show that the parties continued to be at odds about the proposed language of the NPA addendum for several days after the breakfast meeting. Alright folks, we're going to wrap up this episode here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with Acosta agrees to the defense request to postpone Epstein's guilty plea. The parties continue to negotiate issues concerning the attorney representative and finally reach agreement on the NPA addendum. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode we're getting right back to the OIG report and we're going to pick up where we left off. C Acosta agrees to the defense request to postpone Epstein's guilty plea the parties continue to negotiate issues concerning the attorney representative and finally reach agreement on the NPA addendum. A week after his breakfast meeting with Acosta, Lefkowitz, citing a scheduling conflict, sent Acosta an email seeking his agreement to postpone Epstein's entry of his guilty plea in State Court from October 26, 2007, the date agreed to in the NPA, to November 20, 2007. In his email, Lefkowitz reported that the state Attorney's office had agreed to the postponement, and he noted that Acosta had said during the breakfast meeting that he didn't want to dictate the schedule to the state. Acosta solicited input from Sloman, who later that day emailed Lefkowitz and agreed to the postponement. With Laurie having departed from the usao, Sloman became more involved in the negotiating the NPA addendum than he had been in the negotiations leading to the npa, and he quickly came up against the problem Vilafana and Laurie had faced. The defense attorneys continued to negotiate provisions to which they had seemingly already agreed between October 12, 19, 2007. In a series of email exchanges and phone conversations, Acosta, Sloman, Vilafana, and Lefkowitz continued working on language for the NPA addendum addressing the process for selection of the attorney representative and describing which of the representative's activities Epstein would be required to reimburse, although it appeared that progress was being made towards reaching agreement on the terms of an addendum. On October 19, 2007, Lefkowitz emailed Sloman, identifying areas of concern with a proposal the USAO had made days before. Sloman forwarded the email to Acosta, noting that it re plows some of what we accomplished then this week and raised unnecessary issues. Sloman reported to Acosta that a victim in New York had filed a civil lawsuit against Epstein and Vilafano was concerned that this may be the real reason for the delay in the plea. She thinks that Epstein wants to knock that lawsuit out before the guilty plea to deter others. Sloman also alerted Acosta that newspaper reports indicated that Epstein had planted false stories in the press in an attempt to discredit the victims. On October 22, 2007, Sloman responded to the issues Lefkowitz had raised, rejecting some defense proposals, but agreeing to modify certain language in the proposed addendum to satisfy your concern. Noting that the addendum had a revised letter to the Special Master were attached, Sloman ended by stating, this needs to be concluded. Alex and I believe that this is as far as we can go. Therefore, please advise me whether we have a deal no later than COB tomorrow. Nonetheless, the next day Lefkowitz sent Acosta a three page letter reiterating the Epstein team's disagreements with the USAO's interpretation of the NPA. Lefkowitz noted, however, that Epstein had every intention of honoring the terms of the NPA in good faith and that the defense letter was not intended to be a rescission or withdrawal from the terms of of the npa. I also want to thank you for your commitment that you made to me during our October 12th meeting in which you promised genuine finality with regard to this matter and assured me that your office would not intervene with State Attorney's office regarding this matter or contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses or potential civil claimants, and their respective counsel in this matter, and that neither your office nor the FBI would intervene. Request regarding the sentence Mr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State, so long as that sentence does not violate state law. Indeed, so long as Mr. Epstein's sentence does not explicitly violate the terms of the agreement, he is entitled to any type of sentence available to him, including, but not limited to gain time and work release. Sloman forwarded the letter to Villefana, commenting, wait until you see this one. Vilafana replied, welcome to my world. I love the way they want to interpret this agreement. It also looks like they're planning to ask for and receive a sentence far lower than the one we agreed to. Has anyone talked to Barry Krishcher about this? Maybe this is the real reason for the delay in entering the guilty plea. We also have to contact the victims to tell them about the outcome of the case and to advise them that an attorney will be contacting them regarding possible claims of against Mr. Epstein. If we don't do that, it may be a violation of the Florida Bar Rules for the selected attorney to cold call the girls. Why don't we agree to mutual rescission and indict him? Acosta also weighed in sending both Vilafana and Sloman an email with a subject line that read this has to stop in which he stated just read the letter. 1. We specifically refused to include the provision saying that we would not communicate. If I recall the conference call, we told them we could not agree to a gag order using those words. 2. The purpose of the agreement was not an out of court settlement. Seems that they can't take no, let's talk how to proceed. I'm not sure we will ever agree on a letter to the Special Master about how to select an attorney representative at that point. Notwithstanding Acosta's assessment and prediction, after Sloman sent the letter to Lefkowitz, a new draft addendum and and they spoke by phone, the parties reached agreement on the addendum's terms. On October 25, 2007, Sloman sent a letter to the person whom the USAO had selected to serve as Special Master outlining the Special Master's duties. A few days later, on October 29, 2007, Epstein and his attorneys Lefcourt and Sanchez signed the NPA addendum. Vilafana's name was printed as the USAO representative, but at Vilafana's request, Sloman signed the addendum for her on behalf of the usao. Vilafana later emailed Sloman thanking him for the advice in the pep talk which apparently related to the defense attorney's allegations of impropriety concerning her initial selection of the private attorney to assist the victims. Vilafana explained to Sloman, the funny thing is that I never met and still haven't met or spoken to the private attorney. But before I asked him if he would be willing to take on this case. But as soon as you mentioned the appearance problem, I saw where the problem would arise and agreed that the Special Master would be a safer route. I just worry that the defense attacks on me could harm the victims. Sloman responded that defense counsel had put an insidious spin on Villefana's role in proposing the private attorney. But, Sloman added, I hope that you understand that these ad hominem attacks against you do not diminish in our eyes or what you and the agents have accomplished. D. Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea the addendum did not bring the case to conclusion. Instead, the matter entered a new protracted phase which involved the upper echelons of the Department of Justice. Despite the fact that Epstein and his attorneys had signed the npa, they pursued a new strategy of appealing to senior department managers with the goal of setting aside the NPA entirely. Although ultimately unsuccessful, the strategy delayed the entry of of Epstein's guilty plea by months. On October 29, 2007, Villefana emailed Sloman, raising several issues that she wanted Sloman to address with Lefkowitz. Among other things, Vilafana pointed out that the NPA required Epstein to use his best efforts to comply with the agreement. But he had failed to comply with the timeline established by the NPA when he sought and obtained a plea hearing postponement for from October 26 to November 20. Responding to Lefkowitz attempts to limit the USAO's communications with various entities and individuals, Vilafana noted that the USAO needed to be able to communicate with the State Attorney's office and the victim's attorney to ensure that Epstein is abiding by the terms of his agreement. That same day, Assistant State Attorney Belihovlik informed Sloman that the state judge assigned to the case had scheduled Epstein's plea and sentence to in early January 2008. Belijovlik assured Sloman that the plea and sentence will definitely occur before the January 4th date that was agreed on by all for sentencing. Nonetheless, emails over the course of the next month show that the usao, the State Attorney's office, the defense counsel, continued to communicate regarding the date of the guilty plea with the USAO, asserting that a proposed January 7, 2008 date for the entry of Epstein's guilty plea was was unacceptable, while the defense contended that Epstein had not agreed to any date. Finally, after multiple communications referring to various potential dates, on December 7, 2007, Epstein attorney Jack Goldberger issued a notice of hearing setting the case for January 4, 2008. Epstein seeks department review of the NPA section 2255 provision relating to monetary damages for the victims. With Epstein's plea hearing delayed, he launched a new effort to undermine the validity of the NPA this time within the department. On November 16, 2007, Epstein attorney Kenneth Starr called the Office of Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, Alish Fisher and left a message that he was calling regarding Epstein at Fisher's request. Lori, who in late September 2007 began serving his detail as Fisher's principal deputy and Chief of Staff, returned the call. Fisher told OPR that she had no recollection of this call and Lori also could not recall for OPR the substance of his conversations with Starr, other than that it was likely about Epstein's wish to have the Department review the case. On November 28, 2007, Starr requested by letter a meeting with Fisher. In his letter, Starr argued that the USAO improperly had compelled Epstein to agree to pay civil damages under US Code 18 Section 2255 as part of a state based resolution of a criminal case. On that same day, Lefkowitz emailed Sloman complaining about the USAO's plan to notify victims about the 2255 provision and alerting Sloman that Epstein's counsel were seeking a meeting with the Assistant Attorney General to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the section 2255 component of the NPA. After Lori sent to Sloman a copy of the Star letter, Sloman forwarded it to Vilafana asking her to prepare a chronology of the plea negotiations and how the 2255 provision evolved. Vilafana responded that she was going through all of the ways in which they have tried to breach the agreement to convince you guys to let me indict. 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. 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 Jeffrey Epstein's non prosecution agreement. In Washington D.C. lori consulted with CEOs Chief Osterbahn asking for his thoughts on defense counsel's arguments. At the same time, at Lori's request, Vilafana the sent the NPA and its addendum to Lurie and Osterbahn. Osterbahn responded to Lurie that he was not thrilled about the npa, described Epstein's conduct as unusually egregious, particularly because of its serial nature, and observed that the NPA was pretty advantageous for the defendant and not all that helpful to the victims. He opined, however, that the Assistant Attorney General would not and should not consider or address the NPA other than say that she agrees with it. During her OPR interview, Fisher did not recall reading Starr's letter or discussing it with Osterbahn, but believed the comment about her agreeing with it referred to a federal prosecution of Epstein, which she believed was appropriate. She told opr, however, that she played no role in the NPA and did not review or approve the agreement either before or after it was signed, as set forth in more detail in Chapter three of this report. Vilafana planned to notify the victims about the NPA and its Section 2255 provision, as well as about the state plea hearing, and she provided a draft of the notification letter to Lefkowitz for comments. On November 29, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a COSTO letter complaining about the draft notification to the victims. Lefkowitz asked USAO to refrain from notifying the victims until after defense counsel met with Assistant Attorney General Fisherman, which he anticipated would take place the following week. Internal emails indicate that Lori contacted Osterbahn about his availability for a meeting with Starr, but both Fisher and Lori told OPR that such a meeting never took place and OPR found no evidence that it did. Acosta promptly responded to Lefkowitz by letter directing him to raise his concerns about victim notification with Vilafana or Sloman. Acosta also addressed Epstein's evident efforts to stop the NPA from being enforced. Since the signing of the September 24 agreement more than two months ago, it has become clear that several attorneys on your legal team are dissatisfied with that result. You, Professor Dershowitz, former solicitor, former United States Attorney Louis Ms. Sanchez, Black, Goldberg and Lefcourt previously had the opportunity to review and raise objections to the terms of the agreement. The defense team, however, after extensive negotiation, chose to adopt the agreement. Since then, counsel have objected to several steps taken by the U.S. attorney's office to effectuate the terms of the agreement, in essence presenting collateral challenges to portions of the agreement. It is not the intention of this office ever to require a defendant to enter a plea against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. If your client is dissatisfied with this agreement or believes that it is invalid or unlawful or unfair, we stand ready to unwind the agreement. In a separate seven page letter to Starr with Vilafana and Sloman's input, Acosta responded to the substance of Starr's November 28th letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher. Fisher told OPR that she did not recall why Acosta rather than her office responded to the letter, but she conjectured that probably I was trying to make sure that somebody responded since the Criminal Division was wasn't going to respond. In his seven page letter sent to Starr on December 4, 2007, Acosta wrote, the non prosecution agreement entered into between this office and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Under this agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections of title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal one that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a registrable offense, two that this plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment and three that the agreement not harm the interests of his victims. Acosta explained in the letter that usao's intent was to place the identified victims in the same position as they would have been if Mr. Epstein was convicted at trial. No more, no less. Acosta documented the USAO's understanding of the operation of the NPA's Section 2255 provision, recounted the history of the NPA negotiations, and described the post signing efforts by Epstein's counsel to challenge portions of the npa. Acosta's letter concluded, although it happens rarely, I do not mind this Office decision being appealed to Washington and have previously directed our prosecutors to to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decisions. Indeed, although I am confident in our prosecutor's evidence and legal analysis, I nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts and CEOs to confirm our interpretation of the law before approving their charges. I am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to Department headquarters that raises issues that either have not been raised with this office previously or or that have been raised and in fact resolved in your client's favor. I am troubled likewise by the apparent lack of finality in this agreement. The USAs who have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team. It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus far has been that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the client. That said, there must be closure on this matter. Some in our office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions of the agreement even after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind. I would reiterate that this is not the intention of the Office to ever force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes, your client has the right to proceed to trial. Although time is of the essence, I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday to provide you with time to review these options with your client. We expect a written decision by December 7, 2007 at 5:00pm indicating whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm or to unwind the agreement. Acosta explained to OPR that he did not view the letter as inviting department review, but he believed that the department had the right to address Epstein's concerns. Moreover, the USAO's only option at the time was to declare Epstein in breach of the npa, which would have prompted litigation as to whether Epstein was in fact in breach. Acosta noted that defense counsel repeatedly proclaimed Epstein's intent to abide by the agreement, making any USAO effort to declare him in breach more difficult. In fact, the day after receiving Acosta's letter, Starr and Lefkowitz responded to Acosta with copies to Sloman and the Assistant Attorney General Fisher that the defense first and foremost reaffirmed the NPA that Epstein had no intention of unwinding his agreement. On December 7, 2007, the deadline set by Acosta in his December 4, 2007 letter to Starr, the defense transmitted to the USAO one sentence, affirmation of the NPA and and its addendum signed by Epstein. Despite affirming the npa, defense counsel intensify their challenges to it and accuse vilafana of improper conduct. 1 December 7th and 11th, 2007, Starr and Lefkowitz sent to Acosta letters and ethics opinions complaining about the federal investigation and Vilafana. On the same day that the defense team sent Epstein's affirmation to the usao, Starr and Lefkowitz sent to Acosta two independent ethics opinions, one authored by prominent criminal defense attorney and former U.S. attorney Joe Whitley, which assessed purported improprieties in the federal investigation of Epstein and the other by a prominent retired federal judge and former U.S. attorney arguing against the NPA's use of civil damages recovery provision under U.S. code 18 Section 2255 as a proxy for traditional criminal restitution. Days later, on December 11, 2007, Starr sent a letter to Acosta transmitting two lengthy submissions authored by Lefkowitz, presenting substantive challenges to the NPA and to the background and conduct of the investigation. These submissions repeated arguments previously raised by the defense but also asserted new issues. In one submission, 20 pages long, Lefkowitz addressed the improper involvement of federal authorities in the investigation and criticized Vilafana for a number of alleged improprieties, including having engaged in unprecedented federal overreaching by seeking to prosecute Epstein federally, insisting that the State attorney's office charge Mr. Epstein with violations of law and recommend a sentence that are significantly harsher than what the state deemed appropriate, and requiring that Epstein plead guilty and to a registerable offense, a harsh condition that was unwarranted. Lefkowitz also argued that the federal investigation relied upon a state investigation that was tainted by the lead PBPD detectives, misrepresentation of key facts and affidavits and interview summaries, leading the USAO to make its charging decision based on flawed information that compromised the federal investigation. Finally, Lefkowitz criticized federal involvement and in the state plea process as a violation of the tenets of the Petit policy. In a second 13 page submission, Lefkowitz reiterated Epstein's complaints about the Section 2255 component of the NPA, arguing, among other things, that federal prosecutors should not be in the business of helping alleged victims of state crimes secure civil financial settlements. Notwithstanding these voluminous submissions, Lefkowitz added that Epstein unconditionally reasserts his intention to fulfill and not seek to withdraw from or unwind the NPA. 2 As a result of the Starr and Lefkowitz submissions, the new USAO criminal chief begins a full review of the evidence and Acosta agrees to meet again with defense counsel. After reviewing Starr and Lefkowitz letters, Sloman notified Vilafana that in light of the recent Kirkland and Ellis correspondence, he had asked Robert Sr. Who had succeeded Menschel as chief of the USAO's criminal division, to review de novo the evidence underlying the proposed revised indictments and Sloman asked Vilafana to provide signor or senior with all the state and FBI investigative materials. In the meantime, Acosta agreed to meet with Starr and other Epstein defense attorneys to discuss the defense complaints raised in Lefkowitz. December 11, 2007 submissions the meeting took place in Miami on December 14, 2007. The defense team included Star, Dershowitz, Lefcourt, and Boston attorney Martin Weinberg. The USAO side included Acosta, Sloman, Vilafana, and another senior AUSA with the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and Assistant Special Agent in Charge also present. In addition to previously raised arguments during this meeting, Epstein's attorneys raised a new that the state charge to which Epstein had agreed to plead guilty to did not apply to the facts of the case all right, we're going to wrap up this episode here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with three the defense notifies Acosta that it may pursue a department review of the USAO's actions. 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. 3. The defense notifies Acosta that it may pursue a department review of the USAO's actions Shortly after the December 14, 2007 meeting, Lefkowitz notified Acosta that if the issues raised at the meeting could not be resolved promptly, the defense team may have no alternative but to seek review in Washington. Acosta notified Assistant Attorney General Fisher that the defense team might make an appeal to her, and he asked her to grant such a request for review to in fact review this case in an expedited matter in order to preserve the January 4th plea deal. Starr and Lefkowitz then sent to Acosta a lengthy letter with numerous previously submitted defense submissions reviewing issues discussed at the meeting and advising that Epstein sought a prompt, independent, expedited review of the evidence by you or someone you trust. The letter reiterated Epstein's position that his conduct did not amount to a registrable offense under state law or a violation of federal law and with respect to the NPA's Section 2255 provision that it was improper to require Epstein to pay damages to individuals who do nothing but simply assert a claim under the statute. 4. Acosta attempts to revise the NPA section 2255 language concerning monetary damages, but the defense does not accepted. Acosta undertook to respond to defense counsel's continuing concern about the Section 2255 provision. He sent to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigil Mandelker language that he proposed including in a Revision to the NPA's Section 2255 Implementation Section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have any insight to offer. On December 9, 2007, after Acosta and Sloman had a phone conversation with Starr and Lefkowitz, Acosta sent to Sanchez a letter proposing to resolve our disagreements over interpretation by replacing the existing language of the NPA relating to section 2255 with a provision that would any person who, while a minor was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18 used United States Code Section 2255 will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of enumerated offenses. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United states shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens, if any, a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more, no less. Acosta also noted that he had resisted his prosecutor's urging to declare the NPA breached by the defense delays. Lefkowitz responded by letter a few days later suggesting that Acosta's proposal raised several troubling questions and that the problem arises from the incongruity that exists when attempting to fit a federal civil remedy statute into a criminal plea agreement. In a follow up letter to Acosta to address the USAO's concern that Epstein was intentionally delaying the entry of his guilty plea, Lefkowitz asserted that any impediment to the resolution that at issue is a direct cause of the disagreements between the parties and that defense counsel had at all times made and will continue to make sincere efforts to resolve and finalize issues as expeditiously as possible. Acosta told OPR that despite this assurance from the defense counsel, he was increasingly frustrated by Epstein's desire to take an 11th hour appeal to the department soon before the scheduled January 4, 2008 plea hearing. As soon became apparent, Acosta was unable to achieve an expedited review so that Epstein could plead guilty and be sentenced by January 4, 2008 and plea and sentencing date was rescheduled. On January 2, 2008. Sloman spoke with Assistant State Attorney Belojovlik, who confirmed that the change of plea hearing had been postponed. In an email reporting this to Acosta and Vilafana, Sloman said that Epstein's local defense attorney, Goldberger, had told Belihovlik the postponement was because the facts did not fit the proposed state charge and that Bella Hovlich told Sloman she agreed with that assessment. The next day, Vilafana sent to Acosta and Sloman a local newspaper article reporting that Epstein's plea hearings was reset for March and in exchange for it, the federal authorities would drop their investigation of him. Acosta also sent to Sloman and Vilafana an email memorializing a statement made to him by Lefkowitz in a phone call that day. I Lefkowitz may have made a mistake six months ago, belihovlik told us. Solicitation is not registerable. It turns out that the actual offense charged is 5 January 7, 2008 Acosta and Sloman meet with Sanchez, who makes additional allegations on of usao misconduct on January 7, 2008, Acosta and Sloman met with the defense attorney Sanchez at her request. According to meeting notes made by Sloman, among other things, Sanchez alleged that the USAO's media spokesperson had improperly disclosed details of the Epstein case to a national news reporter and Sanchez suggested that the USAO could avoid any potential ugliness in D.C. by agreeing to a watered down resolution for Epstein. After Acosta excused himself to attend another meeting and Sloman refused to speak further with Sanchez without a witness present, she left. Later that day, Acosta and Sloman spoke by phone with Star, Lefkowitz and Sanchez, who expressed concern about the leak to the news media, reiterated their objections to the NPA and pressed for the watered down resolution, which they specified would mean allowing Epstein to plead to a charge of coercion and instead of procurement, avoid serving jail time and not register as a sexual offender. A note in the margin of Sloman's handwritten notes of the conversation reads, we're back to where we started in September. That evening, Vilafana expressed concern that the delay in resolving the matter was affecting the USAO's ability to go forward with a prosecution should Epstein renege on his agreement, and she outlined for Acosta and Slowman the steps she proposed to take while Epstein was pursuing departmental review. Those steps included re establishing contact with victims, interviewing victims in New York, and one victim who lived in a foreign country, making contact with potential sources of information in the Virgin Islands and reinitiating proceedings to obtain Epstein's computers. In the meantime, USAO Criminal Division Chief Robert Signore performed a soup to nuts review of of the Epstein investigation. Reviewing the indictment package and all of the evidence Vilafana had compiled. He told OPR that he could not recall the reason for his review, but opined that it was to establish whether if the plea fell apart, he his chief would agree that we can go forward with the charges. He did not recall being concerned after completing the review that we did not have a lot of victims lined up already that were ready to testify and that some victims might not be favorable for us. Nevertheless, he concluded that the proposed charges were sound and he told Acosta that he would approve proceeding with a federal case. 6 Acosta asked CEOs to review the evidence. Notwithstanding Signore's favorable review, Acosta and Sloman told Starr and Lefkowitz that they appreciated that the defense wanted a fresh face to conduct a review and they noted that the criminal chief had not undertaken the in depth work associated with issues raised by the defense. They told the defense team that Acosta had asked CEOs to come on board and that CEOs Chief Osterbahn would designate an attorney having a national perspective to conduct a fresh review. In light of the defense submissions, osterbahn assigned a CEO's trial attorney who Vilafana understood was to review the case and prepare for trial. And in the event Epstein did not consummate the NPA, the CEO's trial attorney traveled to Florida to review the case materials and to meet with Vilafana to discuss the case and interview some of the victims. After one such meeting, Vilafana wrote to Acosta and we just interviewing three of the girls. I wish you could have been here to see how much this has affected them. One girl broke down sobbing so that we had to stop the interview twice within a 20 minute span. She regained her composure to continue a short time, but she said that she was having nightmares about Epstein coming after her and that she started to break down again so we stopped the interview. The second girl told us that she was very upset about the 18 month deal she had read about in the paper. She said the 18 months was nothing and that she had heard that the girls could get restitution but she would rather not get any money and have Epstein spend a significant time in jail. These girls deserve so much better than they have received so far and I hate feeling that there is nothing I can do to help them. The CEO's trial attorney had substantial experience prosecuting child exploitation cases. She told OPR that in her view, the victim witnesses in this case presented a number of challenges for a prosecution. Some of the victims did not want to admit they had sexual contact with Epstein. Some had recruited other victims to provide Epstein massages and thus could have been charged as accomplices. Some had drug histories and things like that. Some could appear to have been complicit and there is no evidence of physical violence against the victims. She did not regard these victims issues as insurmountable, but based on these alone, the CES trial attorney considered a potential prosecution of Epstein to be a crapshoot. In addition, she told OPR that there were novel legal issues in the case that that also presented difficulties, although she believed these difficulties could be overcome. Shortly after the CEO's trial attorney met with the victims. However, things just stopped when Osterbahn instructed her to cease her involvement in the case and CEOs engaged in the Criminal division review sought by Epstein's defense team. Alright, we're going to wrap this episode up here and in the next episode we're going to pick up where we left off with section nine, February through June 2008. The department's review. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.