← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 24-27) (4/5/26)
00:52:54
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 picking up where we left off with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's NPA Part 9 February through June 2008 the department's review Epstein's defense attorney sought a broad review from the department, one that would encompass the defense complaints about federal jurisdiction, specific terms of the npa, and the various allegations of professional misconduct by USAO attorneys and other personnel. The department, however, only reviewed the issue of federal jurisdiction and never reviewed the NPA or any specific provisions. Nonetheless, the process took several months as the defense appealed the first two CEOs and the department's Criminal Division and then to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. The chart set forth on the following page shows the positions and relationship among the individuals in those offices involved in communicating with the USAO or defense beginning in November 2007 or in those office's reviews, which continued through June of 2008. Part February May 15, 2008 Review by CEOs and Criminal Division On February 21, 2008, soon after the CEO's trial attorney met with victims, Osterbahn spoke with Lefkowitz about CEO's role. In a subsequent email to Vilafana, Sloman and Senor Osterbahn explained, I told Lefkowitz that all I wanted to do is help the process move forward and if they think we best help the process by taking a fresh and objective look at the case and their arguments, then that is what I want to do. I told them that if that's what they want, if that's what will help the process to move forward, then I don't think it's advisable for CEOs partner with the USAO on the case. He wants to think about that and probably talk to his co counsel about whether it's better to have us partnered in the case or just serve as a review function and he said he'd get back to me later. Today. Osterbahn told OPR that this email reflects that he likely told Acosta that he intended to limit CEO's role to review only, and Acosta asked to make sure the defense is okay with that to preempt a possible defense complaint about CEOs involvement in in the review. Osterbahn explained to OPR the defense kept bringing up new arguments and new problems and the USAO was saying look, if we're going to do this, if you've got a problem with it, tell us now. By February 25, 2008, Lefkowitz told Osterbahn, who informed Sloman that the CEO's role should be review only. Laurie had just left the department to enter private practice, and Osterbahn continued to keep his direct supervisor and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker informed of the defense team contacts. Sloman emailed Lefkowitz that CEOs was ready to proceed immediately with a review of the matter. Sloman advised Lefkowitz that In the event CEOs decides that a federal prosecution should not be undertaken against Mr. Epstein, this office will close its investigation. But that should CEOs disagree with Mr. Epstein's position, Mr. Epstein shall have one week to abide by the NPA. Sloman forwarded this email to Vilafana, who responded, why would we possibly let him keep the same deal after all he has put us through and after we've discovered six new girls? The defense soon signaled that the CEO's review would not end the Epstein request for the department's involvement. On February 29, 2008, Lefkowitz requested a defense meeting with Osterbahn. On March 12, 2008, Starr spoke to Assistant Attorney General Fisher and made it clear that the defense team would want an audience with her if CEOs decided to support the prosecution. On March 6, 2008, Acosta alerted Sloman and Osterbahn that Starr and Lefkowitz had called him to express concern about Osterbahn's participation in the case and indicated that they may ask for more senior involvement. Acosta informed them that they certainly had the right to ask whomever they wanted for whatever they thought appropriate and and whatever process would be given to them was up to whomever they asked. The next day, Lefkowitz followed up with Acosta in an email. We appreciate that you will afford us as much time as Main justice determines is appropriate for it to conduct a review of this matter. As you have suggested, we will initiate the review process with Drew Osterbahn and engage in a discussion with him about all the facts and circumstances as well as the legal and policy issues associated with with the case. However, due to our misgivings engendered because Drew has told us that he sees himself as a prosecutor and has already made clear he would be ready and willing to prosecute this case himself, we may well find it necessary to appeal an adverse determination by him within the doj. Ken Starr and I appreciate that you understand this and have no objection to our seeking appellate review within the DOJ. Star Lefkowitz and Martin Weinberg attended the March 12, 2008 meeting as well as the former principal deputy chief of CEOs who had joined the Epstein defense team. Osterbahn, Mandelker and current CEOs deputy chief represented the department. The current CEOs deputy chief told OPR that he recalled some back and forth because the defense team was saying some outrageous things. Both Osterbahn and his deputy chief were disturbed that the former CEO's principal deputy chief, who had been an aggressive advocate for child exploitation prosecutions, was supporting the defense position, although According to the CEO's deputy chief, the former principal deputy chief gave only a weak pitch that was not effective. After the meeting, Starr and Lefkowitz made multiple written submissions to the Criminal Division. One submission provided a lengthy list of USAO actions that have caused us serious concern in including the federal involvement in state criminal prosecution without any communication with state authorities the issuance of legal process and document requests for items that had no connection to conduct at issue the nomination of an individual closely associated with one of the assistant United States attorneys involved in the case to serve as the victim's attorney representative the insistence on a victim notification letter inviting the victims to make sworn statements at Epstein's sentencing and the reported existence of a relationship between Sloman and the law firm representing several of the alleged victims in civil suits against Epstein. In another letter, Starr renewed the defense accusation that USAO improperly disclosed information about the case to the media and accused Sloman and Vilafana of encouraging civil litigation against Epstein. Finally, in a letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher on May 14, 2008, Starr thanked her for having spoken to him the previous day, reiterated the defense team's various complaints, and asked her to meet with them. Lefkowitz and Whitley. Meanwhile, Osterbahn's deputy chief drafted a decision letter to be sent from Ostrabahn to Lefkowitz, and over the course of several weeks it was reviewed by and received input from Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division's Appellate Section regarding certain legal issues and Office of Enforcement Operations regarding the Petit policy. Osterbahn told OPR that notwithstanding the defense submissions on a wide variety of issues and complaints, CEOs's review was limited to determining whether there was a basis for a federal prosecution of Epstein. Ostroban's letter sent to Lefkowitz on May 15, 2008, notified the defense team that CEOs had completed its independent evaluation of whether prosecution of Epstein for federal criminal violations would contradict criminal enforcement policy interests. The letter specified that CEOs reviewed addressed the narrow question of whether a legitimate basis existed for a federal prosecution and that CEOs did not conduct a de novo review of the facts, analyze issues relating to federal statutes that did not pertain to child exploitation, or review the terms of the NPA or the prosecutorial misconduct allegations. The letter stated that based on its examination of the material relevant to its limited review of the matter, CEOs has concluded that federal prosecution in this case would not be improper or inappropriate and that Acosta could properly use his discretion to authorize prosecution in the case. On May 19, 2008, Lefkowitz reached out to Acosta to request a meeting and specifically asked that Acosta not shunt me off to to one of your staff. Lefkowitz made several points in support of the request for a meeting. One CEO's letter acknowledged that federal prosecution of Epstein would involve a novel application of Relevant Federal Statutes 2 CEOs conclusion that federal prosecution would not be an abuse of discretion was hardly an endorsement of the case three CEOs did not address Epstein's prosecutorial misconduct allegations and four critical new evidence in the form of recent defense counsel depositions of victims confirmed that federal prosecution is not appropriate in this case. Lefkowitz alluded to the possibility of seeking further review of the matter by the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General should the defense be unable to resolve this matter directly with Acosta. Acosta declined the request to respond personally and directed Lefkowitz to communicate with with the trial team. That same day, Sloman sent Lefkowitz a letter asking that all further communication about the case be made to Villofana or her immediate supervisor and reiterating that Acosta would not respond personally to counsel's email or calls. Sloman noted that the USAO had bent over backwards to exhaustively consider and reconsider Epstein's objections, but these objections have finally been exhausted. Sloman advised that the USAO would would terminate the NPA unless Epstein complied with all of its terms by the close of business on June 2, 2008. May June 23, 2008 Review by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General Also on May 19, 2008, Starr and Whitley co authored a letter to Deputy Attorney General Mark Phillipe asking for review of the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter. In in the letter, they acknowledged that CEOs had recently completed a very limited review of the Epstein case, but contended that the full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of the Justice Department. They argued that federal prosecution of Epstein was unwarranted and that the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the NPA are beyond any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a prosecutor's responsibilities. They followed up with a second letter on May 27, 2008, in which they asserted the bedrock need for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws and the profound questions raised by the unprecedented extension of federal laws to a prominent public figure who has close ties to President Clinton required department review. On this latter point, they argued that Epstein entered the public arena only by virtue of his close personal association with with former President Bill Clinton, and that there is little doubt that the USAO never would have contemplated a prosecution in the case if Mr. Epstein were just another John this was the first defense submission mentioning Epstein's connection to President Clinton and raising the insinuation that the federal involvement in the investigation was due to politics. In the May 27, 2008 letter to the Deputy Attorney General, Starr and Whitley used the existing June 2, 2008 deadline for the entry of Epstein's guilty plea to argue that it made the need for review of the case all that more exigent. John Roth, a senior Associate Deputy Attorney General who was handling the matter, instructed the USAO to rescind the deadline, and on May 28, 2008, Sloman notified Lefkowitz that the USAO had postponed the deadline pending completion of the review by the Deputy Attorney General's office. Meanwhile, the Criminal Division forwarded to Roth the prior defense submissions, describing them as an enormous amount of material regarding the Epstein matter. On June 3, 2008, Sloman sent to Roth a lengthy letter from Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General recounting detail the history of negotiations with Epstein's counsel, culminating in the NPA and addressing Epstein's claims of professional misconduct. Among the documents admitted with the letter were the prosecution memorandum, one of the proposed charging documents, and the NPA with its addendum, and Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Sanchez. As the review was ongoing in the office of the Deputy Attorney General, State Attorney Krisher mentioned to the USAO's West Palm beach manager that Krisher and Epstein's local defense attorney, Jack Goldberger, had arrived at a resolution of Epstein's case that would involve a 90 day jail term, but Krisher provided no further information. Upon learning of this, Vilafana wrote to her immediate supervisor, please tell me that you're joking. Maybe we should throw him a party and and tell him that we're sorry to have bothered him. Talking about Epstein. Vilafana and her immediate supervisor later had phoned an email exchange with Krishcher and with Epstein's local counsel to insist that the state plea comply with the terms of the NPA or we will consider it a breach of the agreement and proceed accordingly. Deputy Attorney General Phillipe told OPR he had never heard of Epstein before receiving Starr's letter. Following the office's standard protocol, Starr's letter was handled by John Roth, an experienced federal prosecutor who who had served some years before as a USA in the usao. Roth had told OPR that he had never heard of Epstein. Roth explained to OPR that he did not conduct an independent investigation, interview witnesses or meet with Epstein's counsel and instead limited his review to written materials submitted by Epstein's attorneys and by sloman to the Deputy Attorney General's office as well as materials that the defense team and the USAO had previously provided to CEOs and and the Criminal Division front office and that CEOs furnished to him. Roth discussed the matter with two senior staff colleagues as well as with Deputy Attorney General who also reviewed the submissions. Roth told OPR that it was his understanding that Epstein had reneged on the NPA and because he believed the NPA was a dead letter, that he did not review the terms of the agreement or ratify it post hoc. On the other hand, Deputy Attorney General Philippe told OPR he he understood that the NPA was still in effect and that Epstein was trying to undermine the federal jurisdictional basis for the agreement. Apart from addressing Epstein's federalism arguments, however, Deputy Attorney General Phillipe did not believe it was the mission of the Office of the Deputy Attorney General to review the Epstein case de novo to examine the NPA's terms or determine whether the NPA reached the right balance between state and federal punishment. He told opr, we heard an appeal. Epstein wanted a meeting to argue for relief. We didn't give him a meeting and we didn't give him any relief. Deputy Attorney General Philippe told OPR that no one in his office who looked at Epstein's arguments felt that it was sympathetic appeal. In particular, he told OPR that defense counsel's argument that there was no basis for a federal prosecution was ludicrous and the assertion that the USAO's investigation of Epstein was was politically motivated just seemed unserious. On Monday, June 23, 2008, Ross sent a brief letter to Starr and left Kowitz informing them that the office had completed a thorough review of the USAO's handling of the Epstein matter. And did not believe intervention by the Deputy Attorney General was warranted in view of the considerable discretion vested by the department and the U.S. attorneys. He added, even if we were to substitute our judgment for that of the U.S. attorney, we believe the federal prosecution of this case is appropriate. Immediately after receiving a copy of Roth's letter, Vilafana notified defense counsel that Epstein would have until close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008 to comply with the NPA by entering his guilty plea, being sentenced and surrendering to begin serving his sentence. On June 26, 2008, Roth alerted the Office of the Attorney General that Epstein's counsel might try to contact the Attorney General to request additional review and urged the Attorney General not to take defense counsel's calls. Roth told OPR that he was concerned that Epstein's team would try to take further appeal in order to delay resolution in the case. Meanwhile, Starr sent a concluding email to Al Costa acknowledging that they had reached the end of a long and arduous road and adding, while I am obviously very unhappy at what I believe is the government's treatment of my client, a man whom I have come to deeply admire, I recognize that we have filed and argued our appellate motions and lost. I would like to have some closure with you on this matter so that in the years to come neither of us will harbor any will or ill will over this matter. Alright, we're going to wrap up right there and in the next episode we're going to pick up with part 10 June 2008 through June 2009. 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 non prosecution agreement. Part 10 June 2008 through June 2009 Epstein enters his pleas and serves his custodial sentence on Friday, June 27, 2008, Vilafana renewed her request to Epstein's local attorneys, Goldberger and Black, for a copy of the state plea agreement reached with the State Attorney's office, noting that their failure to provide it was a material breach of the npa. After receiving and reviewing the plea agreement form, which was not yet signed, Vilafana sent another letter to Goldberger and Black informing them that the proposed sentence provision did not comply with the requirements of the npa. Specifically, as written, the plea agreement called for a sentence of 12 months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility, followed consecutively by 18 months community control with a special condition that the defendant served the first six months of community control in the Palm beach county detention facility. Vilafana objected to the community control provision, reminding Goldberger and Black that the NPA required Epstein to make a binding recommendation of 18 months imprisonment, which meant confinement 24 hours a day at the county jail. In a subsequent email to Sloman, Vilafana recounted that she had spoken about the issue with Goldberger, who swore that Epstein would be in custody 24 hours a day during the community confinement portion of his sentence. Vilafana added that Goldberger let it slip that Epstein would not be at the jail, he would be at the stockade. Since we specifically discussed this at a meeting with the state attorney months ago that Epstein would be at the jail, this certainly violates the spirit of the NPA agreement, vilafana told Sloman. Something smells very bad. The next day, Villefana asked Goldberger to change the plea agreement by inserting the word imprisoned after six months, and Goldberger agreed to do so. Vilafana, however, did not ask the agreement to be amended to clarify that the reference to the Palm beach county detention facility meant the jail rather than the stockade. The final signed plea agreement form further clarified the sentence, providing that after serving 12 months in the Palm beach county detention Facility, Epstein would be sentenced to six months in the Palm Beach County Detention facility to be served consecutive to the 12 month sentence followed by 12 months community control. The word imprisoned was handwritten after six months but then crossed out and replaced by jail sentence. Part A June 30, 2008 Epstein enters his guilty pleas in State Court Epstein, with his attorney Jack Goldberger, appeared in Palm beach county court on June 30, 2008 and entered guilty pleas to the indictment charging him with one felony count of solicitation of prostitution and to a criminal information charging him with one felony count of procurement of a minor to engage in prostitution. At the plea hearing, which villeFANA and the FBI case agent attended as spectators, Assistant State Attorney Bellevlick did not proffer the facts of the case. Instead, she only recited the charging language and the indictment and the criminal information. Between August 1, 2004 and October 31, 2005, the defendant in Palm beach county did solicit or procure someone to commit prostitution on three or more occasions, and between August 1, 2004 and October 9, 2005, the defendant did procure a minor under the age of 18 to commit prostitution in Palm Beach County. Also, the court found this to be sufficient factual basis to support the pleas and engaged in a colloquy with Belajovlik Regarding Epstein's victims, the court Are there more than one victim? Ms. Belihovlich there are several. The court Are all the victims in both the cases in agreement with the terms of the plea? Ms. Bellijovlick I have spoken to several myself and I have spoken to counsel through counsel as to the other victims and I believe yes, the court and with regard to the victims under age 18, is that victim's parents or guardian in agreement with the plea? Ms. Bellajovlik the victim is not under the age of 18 anymore and and that's why we spoke to counsel the court and she's in agreement with the plea. Ms. Bella Hovlich Yes. When the court asked if the plea was in any way tied to any promises or representations by any civil attorneys or other jurisdictions, Goldberger and Bella Hovleck, with Epstein present, spoke with the judge at sidebar and disclosed the existence of the confidential non prosecution agreement with the usao and the court ordered that a copy of it be filed under seal with the court. After the court accepted Epstein's guilty pleas and imposed sentence on him pursuant to the plea agreement, Epstein was taken into custody to begin serving his sentence immediately. In the aftermath of the plea, numerous individuals familiar with the investigation expressed positive reactions to the outcome, and Villefano received several congratulatory messages. Congratulations, Marie, at long last your work on this matter was truly exceptional and and you obtained a very significant result that will serve the victims well. One senior colleague who was familiar with the case noted, the case only resolved with the filthy rich bad guy going to jail because of your dedication and determination. Another wrote, if it had not been for you, he would have gotten away with it. The CEO's trial attorney, who worked briefly with Vilafana, told her, but for your tenacity, he'd be somewhere ruining another child's life. One victim's attorney stated, great job of not letting this guy off the hook. But Vilafano was not satisfied with the outcome, responding to one after all the hell they put me through, I don't feel like celebrating 18 months. He should be spending 18 years in jail. Acosta later publicly stated that the FBI special agent in charge called him to offer congratulations and to praise prosecutors for holding firm against the attorneys that Epstein brought on. In the same later public statement, Acosta noted that he received communications from Dershowitz, Starr, and Lefkowitz, who all sought to make peace with them. Acosta referred to it as a proud moment. On July 7, 2008, an Epstein victim filed an emergency petition against the department and federal court in Miami alleging a violation of her rights under the cvra. A second victim joined the petition soon thereafter. The history of the litigation and issues relating to it are discussed in Chapter three of this report. B. Epstein Is Placed on Work Release A few days after Epstein's guilty plea, Vilafauna reported to Sloman that Epstein was incarcerated at the low security stockade rather than the main detention center where county prisoners were usually housed. She also told Sloman that, according to the Sheriff's Office, Epstein was eligible for work release. Although the USAO had made clear that it expected Epstein to be incarcerated 24 hours a day, every day, the subject of the work release had not been addressed explicitly during the NPA negotiations, and the NPA itself was silent on the issue. Epstein's acceptance into the work release program as a convicted sexual offender was seen by many as another special benefit given to Epstein. Because the decision to allow Epstein into the work release program was made by the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office, OPR did not investigate whether any state, county, or sheriff's office rules were violated. OPR did examine the USAO's consideration of work release prior to signing the NPA and its subsequent unsuccessful efforts to ensure that Epstein remained incarcerated 24 hours a day. The first specific reference to work release was made weeks after the NPA was signed, when Lefkowitz asserted in his October 23, 2007 letter to Acosta that so long as Mr. Epstein's sentence does not explicitly violate the terms of the npa, he's entitled to any type of sentence available to him, including, but not limited to gain time and work release. In November 2007, Sloman had an exchange of letters with lefkowitz about the USAO's understanding that Epstein had agreed to serve his full jail term in continuous confinement. Pointing out that the NPA clearly indicates that Mr. Epstein is to be incarcerated. Sloman noted the Florida Department of Corrections rules did not allow individuals registered as sexual offenders to participate in work release and thus Epstein would not be eligible for work release program. Sloman concluded that the USAO is putting you on notice that it intends to make certain that Mr. Epstein is treated no better and no worse than anyone else convicted of the same offense, and that if Epstein were to be granted work release, the USAO would investigate the reasons why an exception was granted in Mr. Epstein's case. However, also in November, State Attorney Krisher told Sloman that Epstein was in fact alleged eligible to petition for work release because his sexual offender registration would not take place until after Epstein completed the sentence, but that Krischer would oppose such a petition if it's in the agreement. On November 16, 2007, the case agents met with Belihovlick and asked if the state Attorney's office would oppose a request that Epstein be granted work release. Belihovlick was non committal, and when the agents asked what she included lynch language in the state's plea agreement prohibiting Epstein from participating in work release, she responded that she would have to discuss the issue with the state attorney. Krisher later told OPR that work release was within the control of the sheriff's office, not my office. The state's plea agreement with Epstein did not address the issue of work release. The day after Epstein entered his June 30, 2008 plea, Vilafauna and her immediate supervisor met with Palm Beach Sheriff's Office officials to discuss work release. According to Vilafana, the official told them Epstein would be eligible for work release and will be placed on work release, a statement that contradicted the information the case agents had been given by the jail supervisor the previous November, as well as statements made by the defense attorney, Jack Goldberger to Vilafana just days before the plea was entered. When he specifically told Vilafana that Epstein would not get work released, Vilafana alerted the sheriff's office official that although Epstein told the court during his plea proceeding that he had worked every day for a couple of years at the Florida Science foundation, that entity did not even exist until November 2007. Moreover, the address Epstein provided to the court for the Florida Science foundation was the office of Epstein's attorney, Jack Goldberger. Vilafana and her supervisor asked the Sheriff's office notify the USAO if Epstein applied for work released. Acosta told OPR that he was aware Vilafana was trying to ensure that Epstein did not get work release and he would not have contradicted her efforts. Acosta explained that the USAO expected Epstein would be treated like everyone else, but that as shown by our subsequent communications with the State Attorney's office, having Epstein on work release was not what our office envisioned. Alright, we're going to wrap up right 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 going to get back to the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's non prosecution agreement. In August 2008, Vilafana spoke with Defense attorney Black about ensuring Epstein's compliance with the NPA and raised the issue of work release. Vilafana later reported to Acosta and Sloman that Black assured her that he had reminded the team that 18 months in jail is a material term of the agreement. The USAO never received notice of Epstein's work release application. On October 10, 2008, less than three and a half months after Epstein entered his guilty plea, the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office placed him into the work Release program, permitting him to leave the stockade for up to 12 hours per day, six days per week, to work at the Florida Science foundation office in West Palm beach. In mid November 2008, Vilafana learned that Epstein was on work release. She notified Acosta, Sloman, and the USAO Criminal Division Chief of this development in an email and asked, can I indict him now? On November 24, 2008, Villefana sent defense attorney Black a letter notifying him that the USAO believed Epstein's application to and participation in the work release program constituted a material breach of the npa. Vilafana reminded Black that she had more than a dozen emails expressing the USAO's insistence that Epstein be incarcerated for 18 months and that her June 27, 2008 letter to Council made it clear that this meant confinement for 24 hours a day. Vilafana noted that Goldberger had not inserted the word imprisoned into the plea agreement and as he agreed to, but instead inserted the term jail sentence. Vilafana told counsel the USAO's agreement not to prosecute Mr. Epstein was based upon its determination that 18 months, incarceration, confinement, 24 hours a day was sufficient to satisfy the federal interest in Mr. Epstein's crimes. Accordingly, the U.S. attorney's office hereby gives notice that Mr. Epstein has violated the NPA by failing to remain incarcerated 24 hours a day for the 18 month term of imprisonment. The United States will exercise any and all rights it has under the NPA unless Mr. Epstein immediately ceases and desists from his breach of this agreement. According to Vilafana, the FBI case agent spoke with the Stockade's work Release coordinator and reported back that the work Release Coordinator told her he had been led to believe the government knew Epstein had applied for the program and that he had been threatened with legal action and if he did not allow Epstein to participate in work release. On November 26, 2008, the USAO advised the Department that Acosta was recused from all matters involving the law firm of Kirkland, Nellis which was still heavily involved in the Epstein case because Acosta was discussing with the firm the possibility of employment. As a result, Sloman became the senior USAO official responsible for making final decisions related to Epstein. Also, on November 26, 2008, Black responded to Vilafana's letter acknowledging that Epstein was serving his sentence in the Palm Beach County Work Release Program but denying that Epstein was in breach of the npa. Black noted that the NPA did not prohibit work release. The NPA expressly provided that Epstein was to be afforded the same benefits as any other inmate. Florida law treated work release as part of confinement and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office had discretion to grant work release to any inmate. Black also claimed that Acosta recognized that Mr. Epstein might serve a portion of his sentence through the work release program and pointed out that the December 6, 2007 draft victim notification letter sent to Lefkowitz for review specifically referred to the victim's rights to be notified if Epstein is allowed to participate in a work Release program. On December 3, 2008, in advance of his scheduled meeting with Black, Villafontis and Sloman and Criminal Division Chief Sr. An email about Epstein's participation in the work release Program it appears that since day one, Goldberger and Krischer have been scheming to get Epstein out on work release. For example, the indictment incorrectly charges Epstein for an offense that would have made him ineligible for work release if it had been charged correctly. Remember that Krisher also went along with letting us believe that Epstein was pleading to a registrable offense which when Epstein's folks in Krisher believed that the offense was not registerable. Krischer and Goldberger also told us that Epstein would be housed in the Palm Beach County Jail, not the Stockade, but he would not have been eligible for work release at the jail. As part of his work release, Epstein has hired off duty sheriff's deputies to provide him with protection. It appears that he is paying between $3,000 and $4,100 per week for this service, despite the work release rules barring anyone from the Sheriff's Office and Sheriff's Office itself from having any business transactions with inmates while they are in the custody or supervision of the Sheriff. Vilafana added that she and her immediate supervisor believe that the USAO should not budge on the 24 hour a day incarceration requirement. Referring to the CVRA litigation. Vilafana also pointed out that two victims had brought suit against the USAO for failing to keep them informed about the investigation and the office had no obligation to inform all the victims upon Epstein's release. On December 11, 2008, Vilafana wrote the Corrections Division of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office to express the USAO's view that Epstein was not eligible for work release and to alert the Sheriff's Office that Epstein's work release application contained several inaccuracies and omitted relevant information. Vilafana pointed out that Epstein's application identified his place of employment and as the Florida Science foundation and the telephone number listed in the application for the Florida Science foundation was the telephone number to the law firm of Epstein's attorney, Jack Goldberger. Vilafana also noted that the individual identified in the work release file as Epstein's supervisor at the Florida Science foundation had submitted publicly available sworn filings to the Internal Revenue Service indicating that Epstein worked only one hour per week and earned no compensation. But that same individual had represented to the Sheriff's Office that Epstein's duties required him to work six days a week for 12 hours per day. Finally, Villefana pointed out that Epstein's purported supervisor, who as the Foundation's Vice president was subordinate to Epstein. The Foundation's president had promised to alert the Sheriff's Office if Epstein failed to comply with his work schedule, but the supervisor lived and worked in New York and was unable to monitor Epstein's activities on a day to day basis. The Sheriff's Office neither acknowledged nor responded to vilafana's letter. In March 2009, Sloman met in Miami with Dershowitz for, as Dershowitz characterized it, a subsequent email, a relaxed drink and conversation, and included a discussion about the Epstein case. After that encounter, Dershowitz emailed Sloman expressing appreciation for Sloman's assurances that the Feds will not interfere with how Palm Beach Sheriff administers Epstein sentence as long as he's treated like any similarly situated inmate. Sloman responded, Regarding Mr. Epstein, the United States Attorney's Office will not interfere with how the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office administers the sentence imposed by the Court. That being said, this does not mean that the USAO condones or encourages the PBSO to mitigate the terms and conditions of his sentence. Furthermore, it does not mean that if contacted for for our position concerning alternative custody or in home detention, we would not object. To be clear, if contacted, we will object naturally. I also expect that no one on behalf of Mr. Epstein will use my assurance to you to affirmatively represent to PBSO that the USAO does not object to an alternative custody or home detention. A week later, Dershowitz emailed Sloman again, this time expressing appreciation for Sloman's willingness to call the sheriff and and advised him that your office would take no position on how he handled Epstein's sentence as long as Epstein did not receive special treatment, but adding, let's put any call off for a while. Epstein's sentence required that he be confined to his home for a 12 month period following his release from prison on July 22, 2009, almost 13 months after he began serving his sentence, Epstein was released from the stockade and placed on home confinement. At this time he registered as a sexual offender. 9 Post Release Developments in the summer of 2009, allegations surfaced that Epstein had cooperated with the U.S. attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York's investigation of investment bank Bear Stearns and that he had been released early from his 18 month imprisonment term because of that. When Vilafana spoke with attorneys in the Eastern District of New York, however, an AUSA told Vilafana that they never heard of Epstein and that he had not cooperated with the Bear Stearns case. During her OPR interview, Vilafana told OPR that to her knowledge, the rumor of Epstein's cooperation was completely false. Vilafana and the USAO continued to monitor Epstein's compliance with the terms of the NPA. In August 2009, Villefana alerted her supervisors that Epstein was an apparent violation of his home detention. He had been spotted walking on the beach and and when stopped by the police, he claimed that he was walking to work at an office nearly eight miles from his home. The LEFANA passed this information along to the Palm Beach County Probation Office by letter dated September 1, 2009. Black wrote to Sloman seeking the USAO's Agreement Transfer Supervision of the Community Control phase of Epstein sentenced to the US Virgin Islands where Epstein maintained his primary residence. In response, Vilafauna the notified Black that the USAO opposed such a request and would view it as a violation of the npa. Three months later, Sloman met with Dershowitz and, among other issues, informed him that the USAO opposed early termination of Epstein's Community Control supervision and would object to a request to transfer Epstein's supervision to the US Virgin Islands. After serving his year in home detention in Florida, Epstein completed his sentence on July 21, 20, 2010 all right, we're going to wrap up here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with Chapter two, Part two, applicable standards. 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 back to the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's non prosecution agreement Chapter 2 Part 2 Applicable Standards 1. OPR's analytical framework OPR finds professional misconduct when an attorney intentionally violates or acts in reckless disregard of a known unambiguous obligation imposed by law, rule of professional conduct, or department regulation or policy in determining whether an attorney has engaged in professional misconduct uses the preponderance of the evidence standard to make factual findings. An attorney intentionally violates an obligation standard when the attorney engages in conduct with the purpose of obtaining a result that the obligation or standard unambiguously prohibits or two engages in conduct knowing its natural or probable consequence and that the consequence is a result that the obligation or standard unambiguously prohibits an attorney acts in reckless disregard of an obligation or standard or when one the attorney knows or should know, based on his or her experience, that the unambiguous nature of the obligation or standard of an obligation or standard two the attorney knows or should know, based on his or her experience and the unambiguous applicability of the obligation of standard that the attorney's conduct involves a substantial likelihood that he or she will violate or cause a violation of the obligation or standard and three the attorney nonetheless engages in the conduct which is objectively unreasonable under all the circumstances. Thus, an attorney's disregard for an obligation is reckless when it represents a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that an objectively reasonable attorney would observe in the same situation. If OPR determines that an attorney did not engage in professional misconduct, OPR determines whether the attorney exercised poor judgment, engaged in other inappropriate conduct, made a mistake, or acted appropriately under all the circumstances. An attorney exercises poor judgment when faced with alternative courses of action. He or she chooses a course of action that is in marked contrast to the action that the Department may reasonably expect. An attorney exercising good judgment Take Poor judgment differs from professional misconduct in that an attorney may act inappropriately and thus exhibit poor judgment even though he or she may not have violated or acted in reckless disregard of a clear obligation or standard. In addition, an attorney may exhibit poor judgment even though an obligation or standard at issue is not sufficiently clear and unambiguous to support a professional misconduct finding. A mistake, on the other hand, results from an inexcusable human error despite an attorney's exercise of reasonable care under the the circumstances. An attorney who makes a good faith attempt to ascertain the obligation and standards imposed on the attorney and to comply with them in a given situation does not commit professional misconduct Evidence that an attorney made a good faith attempt to ascertain and comply with the obligations and standards, consulted with a supervisor or ethics advisor, notified the tribunal or the attorney representing a party or person with adverse interests of an intended course of conduct or took affirmative steps the attorney reasonably believed were required to comply with an obligation or standard. 2. Applicable standards of Conduct A. The United States Attorney's Manual among its many provisions, United States Attorney Manual includes general statements of principles that summarize appropriate considerations to be weighed and desirable practices to be followed by by federal prosecutors when discharging their prosecutorial responsibilities. The goal of USAM is to promote the reasoned exercise of prosecutorial authority and contribute to the fair, even handed administration of the federal criminal laws and to promote public confidence that important prosecutorial decisions will be made rationally and objectively on the merits of each case. USAM section 9.27.001 because USAM is designed to assist in structuring the decision making process of government attorneys, many of its principles are cast in general terms with a view providing guidance rather than mandating results. See Also USAM section 9.27.120 comment. It is expected that each federal prosecutor will be guided by these principles in carrying out his or her criminal law enforcement responsibilities. However, it is not intended that reference to these principles or will require a particular prosecutorial decision in any given case. U. SAM section 9.27.110 under federal law criminal justice system, the prosecutor has wide latitude in determining when, whom, how, and even whether to prosecute for apparent violation of federal criminal law. However, USAM section 927.130 provides that a USAS who departs from the principles of federal prosecution articulated in the USAM may be subject to internal discipline. In particular, USAM section 9.27.130 states that each U.S. attorney should establish internal office procedures to ensure that prosecutorial decisions are made at an appropriate level of responsibility and are consistent with the principles set forth in USAM and that serious, unjustified departures from the principles set forth in USAM are followed by remedial action, including the imposition of disciplinary sanction when warranted and deemed appropriate. US Attorneys have plenty authority with regard to federal criminal matters and may modify or depart from the principles set forth in USAM as deemed necessary in the interest of fair and effective law enforcement within their individual judicial districts. USAM Section 9.2001.9.27 the USAM provisions are supplemented by the Department's Criminal Resource Manual, which provides additional guidance relating to the conduct of federal criminal prosecutions. 1. USAM provisions relating to the Initiation and Declination of a Federal Prosecution Federal prosecutors do not open a case on every matter referred to them. USAM Section 9. 2020 explicitly authorizes the A US Attorney to Decline prosecution in any case referred directly to him or her by an agency unless a statute provides otherwise. Whenever a U.S. attorney closes a case without prosecution, the file should reflect the action taken and the reason for it. USAM section 9.27.220 sets forth the grounds to be considered in making the decision whether to commence or decline federal prosecution. A federal prosecutor should commence or recommend prosecution if he or she believes that admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction of a federal offense unless 1 the prosecution would serve no federal interest 2 the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction or three there exists an adequate alternative to prosecution. A comment to this provision indicates that it is the prosecutor's task to determine whether whether these circumstances exist and in making the determination, the prosecutor should consult USAM section 9.27.230, 927240 or 927250 as appropriate. USAM section 9.27.231 sets forth a non exhaustive list of considerations that a federal prosecutor should weigh in determining whether a substantial federal interest would be served by initiating prosecution against a person 1 federal law enforcement priorities 2 the nature and seriousness of the offense 3 the deterrent effect of prosecution 4 the person's culpability in connection with the offense 5 the person's history with respect to the criminal activity 6 the person's willingness to cooperate in the investigation or prosecution of others and seven the probable sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted. The USAM contemplates that on occasion a federal prosecutor will decline to open a case in deference to prosecution by the State in which the crime occurred. USAM Section 9.27.240 directs that in evaluating the effectiveness of prosecution in another jurisdiction, the federal prosecutor should weigh all relevant considerations, including the strength of the other jurisdiction's interest in prosecution, the other jurisdiction's ability and willingness to prosecute effectively, and the probable sentence or other consequences the person will be subject to if convicted in the other jurisdiction. A comment to this provision explains some offenses, even though in violation of federal law, are of particularly strong interest to the authorities of the State or local jurisdiction in which that they occurred either because of the nature of the offense, the identity of the offender, or victim, the fact that the investigation was conducted primarily by state or local investigators, or some other circumstance. Whatever the reason, when it appears that federal interest in prosecution is less substantial than the interest of state or local authorities, consideration should be given to referring the case to those authorities rather than commencing or recommending a federal prosecution. Another Comment cautions that in assessing whether to defer to state or local authorities, the federal prosecutor should be alert to any local conditions, attitudes, relationships, or other circumstances that might cast doubt on the likelihood of the state or local authorities conducting a thorough and successful prosecution. U. SAM Section 9.27.260 this statute identifies impermissible considerations relating to the decision whether to initiate or decline a federal prosecution. Specifically, the decision making may not be based on consideration of the person's race, religion, sex, national origin or political association, activities or beliefs the prosecutor's own personal feelings about the person or the victim, or the possible effect of the decision on the prosecutor's own professional or personal circumstances. When opting to decline federal prosecution, the prosecutor should ensure that the reasons for that decision are communicated to the investigating agency and reflected in the office files. USAM Section 9.27. 2702 USAM Section 9.2031 the petite policy Although the Constitution does not prohibit prosecutions of a defendant by both state and federal authorities, even when the conduct charge is identical in both charging jurisdictions, the Department has a long standing policy known as the Petite Policy governing federal prosecutions charged after the initiation of prosecution in another jurisdiction based on the same or similar conduct. The general principles applicable to the prosecution or declination decision are set forth in USAM section 9.2.031. Dual and successive Prosecution Policy, which contains guidelines for a Federal prosecutor's exercise of discretion in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on the substantiality same act or transaction involving in a prior State or federal proceeding. The policy applies whenever there has been a prior State or Federal prosecution resulting in an acquittal, a conviction, including one resulting from a plea agreement or a dismissal or other termination of merits after jeopardy has attached. In circumstances in which the policy applies, a prosecutor nonetheless can initiate a new federal prosecution when three substantive prerequisites exist. The prerequisites are as 1. The matter must involve a substantial Federal interest. The determination whether a substantial Federal interest is involved is made by a case by case basis. Matters that come within the national investigation and prosecution priorities established by the Department are more likely to satisfy this requirement than other matters. 2. The prior prosecution must have left the substantial federal interest demonstrably unvindicated in general, the Department presumes that a prior prosecution has vindicated federal interests, but that presumption may be overcome in certain circumstances. As relevant here, the presumption may be overcome when the choice of charge in the prior prosecution was based on factors such as incompetence, corruption, intimidation, or undue influence. The presumption may be overcome even when the prior prosecution resulted in a conviction if the prior sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved in a substantially enhanced sentence, including forfeiture and restitution, as well as imprisonment and fines, is available through the contemplated federal prosecution. 3. The government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. However, the satisfaction of the prerequisite does not require a prosecutor to proceed with a federal investigation or charges, nor is the Department of required to approve the proposed prosecution. The Petit Policy cautions that whatever a matter involves overlapping federal and state jurisdiction, federal prosecutors should consult with their state counterparts to determine the most appropriate single forum in which to proceed to satisfy the substantial federal and state interests involved. If a substantial question arises as to whether the petite Policy applies to a particular prosecution, the prosecutor should submit the matter to the appropriate Assistant Attorney General for resolution. Prior approval from the appropriate Assistant Attorney General must be obtained before bringing a prosecution governed by this policy. Alright, folks, we're going to wrap up there and in the next episode we're going to pick up with Part three USAM provisions relating to plea agreements. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the Description box.