← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 45-47) (4/8/26)
00:39:53
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
Transcript7 lines
- [00:00]
Host of Epstein Chronicles
The right window treatments change everything. Your sleep, your privacy, the way every
- [00:04]
Host of Lapsed Fan Podcast
room looks and feels.
- [00:05]
Host of Epstein Chronicles
@blinds.com, we've spent 30 years making it
- [00:08]
Host of Lapsed Fan Podcast
surprisingly simple to get exactly what your home needs. We've covered over 25 million windows and have 50,000 five star reviews to prove we deliver. Whether you DIY it or want a pro to handle everything from measure to install, we have you covered. Real design professionals, free samples, zero pressure right now. Get up to 45% off with minimum
- [00:25]
Host of Epstein Chronicles
purchase plus get a free professional measure@blinds.com rules and restrictions apply.
- [00:31]
Host of Lapsed Fan Podcast
Boss, what's the most dreaded question that you can get when you tell people you host a podcast called the Lapsed Fan? Ugh. It's what is it about and why is that, do you think? Because to like pro wrestling is to lose the respect of others. Now what if we told you there's a podcast that explains exactly why that is and why it's kind of deserved for over a decade we've taken fact finding missions through the thicket of half truths that is wrestling history. We watch old matches, call out carnies, laugh at our own jokes, and have so much fun doing it that some people actually can't handle it. Think wrestling is an escape from real life? Think again. Same power games, same office politics, same people lying to your face. Just with entrance music and absolutely no company health insurance under any circumstances. All I offer is opportunity, not benefits. As do we, Vince the Lapsed Fan Podcast Come for the wrestling history. Stay for the uncomfortable truth about why it used to be better and why you still care.
- [01:31]
Host of Epstein Chronicles
What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. This episode. We're going to pick up where we left off with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's npa. A the case agents in Vilafana solicit some victims opinions about resolving the federal investigation. Vilafana told OPR that when she and the case agents met with the victims, we would ask them how they wanted the case to be resolved and most of them wanted the case to be resolved via a plea. Some of them wanted him not to be prosecuted at all. Most of them did not want to have to come to court and testify. They were very worried about their privacy rights. Some of them wanted him to go to jail, but some of them talked about bad experiences with the state attorney's office and so I felt like sending them back to the state attorney's office was not something that they would have supported. Vilafana told OPR that she also recalled that some victims expressed concern about their safety and were worried that Epstein would find out about their participation in the investigation. In her 2017 declaration submitted in the CVRA litigation, Vilafana stated that the two CVRA petitioners never communicated their desire to to me or the FBI case agents and my role was to evaluate the entire situation, consider the input received from all the victims, and allow the office to exercise its prosecutorial discretion accordingly. She also noted that some victims feared having their involvement with Epstein revealed and the negative impact it would have on their relationships with family members, boyfriends, etc. In the FBI case agent's 2017 declaration filed in the CVRA litigation Age, she stated, during interviews conducted from 2006 to 2008, no victims expressed a strong opinion that Epstein be prosecuted. She further described the concerns of some of the victims throughout the investigation. We interviewed many of Epstein's victims. A majority of the victims expressed concern about the possible disclosure of their identities to the public. A number of the victims raised concerns about having to testify and or their parents finding out about about their involvement with Mr. Epstein. Additionally, for some victims, learning of the Epstein investigation and possible exposure of their identities caused them emotional distress. Overall, many of the victims were troubled about the existence of the investigation. They displayed feelings of embarrassment and humiliation and were reluctant to talk to investigators. Some victims who were identified through the investigation refused even to speak with us. Our concerns about the victim's well being and getting to the truth were always at the forefront of our handling of the investigation. The case agent told OPR that although she encountered victims who were strong and believable, she did not encounter any who vigorously advocated for the prosecution of Epstein. Rather, they were embarrassed, didn't want their parents to know, and wanted to Forget. As of September 24, 2007, the date the NPA was signed, Vilafana informed Epstein attorney Lefkowitz that she had compiled a preliminary list of victims including 34 confirmed minors and six other potential minor victims who had not yet been interviewed by the FBI. Although the government had contacted many victims before the NPA was signed, Vilafana acknowledged during the CVRA litigation that individual victims were not consulted regarding the agreement before the NPA is signed. Villefana expresses concern that victims have not been consulted before the NPA was signed. Villefana articulated to her supervisor's concerns about the government's failure to consult with the victims. 1July 2007 Vilafana's email exchanges with Menchel In July 2007, Vilafana learned that Menshel had discussed with Defense counsel Sanchez on a possible state resolution to the federal investigation of Epstein. Vilafano was upset by this information and sent a strongly worded email to Menschel voicing her concerns. A full account of their email exchange is set forth at Chapter 2, Part 1, Section 4A2. In that email, she told him that it was inappropriate for you to make a plea offer that you know is completely unacceptable to the FBI, ice, the victims, and me. These plea negotiations violate all of the various iterations of the victims rights legislation. Vilafana explained to OPR her reference to the victims. My concern was that Menshel was violating the cvra, which requires the attorneys for the government, which includes me, to confer with the victims and the vrra, which requires the agents to keep the victims apprised of what's happening with the case. So in essence, I felt like he was exposing both myself and and the agent's allegations of not abiding by our obligations by engaging in these plea negotiations without letting us know about it. In his reply to Vilafana's email, and after noting that he found her email totally inappropriate, Menshel denied that he had violated any department policy and denoted that as Chief of the Criminal Division, I'm the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and and consistent with departmental policy. Perceiving Menshel's rebuke as criticism of her judgment, Vilafana responded, raising concerns about the forgotten voices of victims in this case should not be classified as a lapse of judgment, and that her first and only concern in this case is the victim's. Menchel told OPR that he did not view this conversation with Sanchez as a plea offer, asserted that he was not obligated to consult with victims during preliminary settlement negotiations, and noted that he left the USAO before the NPA was fully negotiated or signed. Menshel told OPR that you have discussions with the defense all the time and the notion that even just having a general discussion is something that must be vetted with victims is not even in the same universe as to how I think about this. Menshel also observed that on the very day that Vilafana criticized him for engaging in settlement negotiations without consulting her, the FBI, or the victims, Vilafana had herself sent an email to Sanchez offering to discuss the possibility of a federal resolution of Mr. Epstein's case that could run concurrently with any state resolution without having spoken to the victims about her proposal. 2 Vilafana asserts that her supervisors gave instructions not to consult victims about the plea discussions, but her Supervisors do not currently recall such instructions. Vilafana told OPR that during an early meeting with Acosta, Sloman and Menshel, which took place when we were probably just entering into plea negotiations, she raised the government's obligation to confer with victims. Initially, Villefana told OPR she was instructed don't talk to the victims, don't tell them what's happening. But she was not told why she should not speak to the victims and she cannot recall who gave her this instruction. In a subsequent OPR interview, Vilafana recall that when she raised the issue of notification during the meeting, she was told plea negotiations are confidential, you can't disclose them. Vilafana remained uncertain who gave her this instruction but believed it may have been Acosta. Neither Acosta, Sloman nor Menshel recalled a meeting at which Villefana was directed not to notify the victims. Acosta told OPR that the decision whether to solicit the victim's view is something that I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused on at the least not at the time. And he did not recall discussions about victim notification until after the NPA was signed. Sloman also told OPR that he did not recall a meeting at which victim notification was discussed. Menshel wrote in his response to I have no recollection of any discussions or decisions regarding whether the USAO should notify victims of its intention to enter into a pre charged disposition of the Epstein matter. Furthermore, Menshel told OPR he could not think of a reason why the issue of victim notification would have arisen before he left the USAO because we were way off from finalizing or having anything even close to a deal and it would have been premature to consider notification. 3 September 6, 2007 Vilafana informs Sloman who informs Acosta of Ostravan's opinion that consultation with victims was required. On September 6, 2007, in a lengthy email to Sloman, responding to his question about the government's then pending offer to the defense, Vilafana raised the victim consultation issue, advising that the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as CEOs chief Osterbahn politely reminded me is required under the law and that the Palm Beach Police Department chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal. Sloman forwarded this email to Acosta. Vilafana recalled that Sloman responded to her email by telephone, possibly after he had spoken to Acosta and stated you can't do that now Vilafana did not recall Sloman explaining at the time the reason for that instruction. Vilafana told OPR that shortly before the NPA was signed, Sloman told her, we've been advised that pre charge resolutions do not require victim notification. Sloman did not recall any discussions before the NPA was signed about contacting the victims or conferring with them regarding the potential resolution of the case. Sloman told OPR that he did not think that we had to consult the victims prior to entering into the NPA and we did not have to seek approval from victims to resolve the case. We did have an obligation to notify them of the resolution in filed cases. Sloman said that no one other than Vilafana raised the notification issue and because the USAO envisioned the state court resolution of the matter, Sloman did not think we had to consult with victims prior to entering into the npa. Lori told OPR that he had no memory of Villefana being directed not to speak to the victims about the npa. Similarly, the attorney who assumed Lori's supervisory duties after Lori transitioned to his detail in the department told OPR that he did not recall any discussions with regarding victim notification and he assumed that was being handled. Acosta did not recall the September 6, 2007 email but told OPR that there is no requirement to notify the victims because it's not a plea, it's deferring in favor of state prosecution. Acosta told OPR that he could not recall any pre NPA discussions regarding victim notification or any particular concern that factored into the decision not to consult with with the victims before entering into the npa. Ultimately, Acosta acknowledged the OPR clearly given the way it's played out, it may have been much better if we had consulted with the victims. CEOs Chief Osterbahn told OPR that he disagreed with the USAO's stance that the CVRA did not require pre charge victim consultation, but in his view the USAO posture was not an abuse of discretion or an ethical issue, but rather reflected a serious and legitimate disagreement regarding the CVRA's requirements. Osterbahn's disagreement was based on policy considerations and he told OPR from a policy perspective, CEOs would not take a position that wouldn't consult with the victims. Osterbahn was told OPR that whether or not the law required it, the victims should have been given an opportunity to weigh directly. But he did not fault the USAO's motivations for failing to provide that opportunity. The people I know, Andy Jeff were trying to do the right thing. They weren't acting unethically. I just disagree with the outcome. But the point is they were trying to do the thing that was proper. It was more of this question of you can let the victims weigh in on this, you can get their input on this, and maybe it doesn't sway you. You still do what you're going to do. But it's hard to say. It was a complete, completely clean exercise of prosecutorial discretion when the USAO didn't really know what the victims would say. Sloman told opr, I don't think we had a concern about entering into the NPA at that point in terms of notifying victims. I was under the perception that once the NPA was entered into and Epstein was going to enter a guilty plea in state court, that we were going to notify the victims. Alright folks, we're going to wrap up right there and in the next episode we're going to Pick up with Part 7 September 24, 2007 June 30, 2008 after the NPA is signed, the USAO makes various victim notification decisions. 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 pick up where we left off with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's NPA. Part 7 September 24, 2007 June 30, 2008 after the NPA is signed, the USAO makes various victim notification decisions. The contemporaneous emails make clear that once the NPA was signed, Vilafana and the case agents plan to inform the victims about the resolution of the federal investigation. However, the emails also show that the USAO was unclear about how much information could be given to the victims in light of the NPA's non disclosure provision and consulted with Epstein's defense counsel regarding victim notifications. As a result, although the expectation in the USAO was the victims would be informed about the npa, the monetary damages provision and the state plea, the USAO became entangled in more negotiations with the defense attorneys who who strongly objected to the government's notification plan. In addition, Vilafana and the case agents grew concerned that notifying the victims about the NPA monetary damages provision would damage the victim's credibility if Epstein breached the NPA and the case went to trial. In the end, Acosta decided to defer to the state attorney's discretion whether to notify the victims about the state plea and information about the NPA as the monetary damages provision was not provided to victims until after Epstein pled guilty in June of 2008. A September through October 2007, the case agents notify some victims about the NPA but stop when the case agent becomes concerned about potential impeachment. In transmitting the signed NPA to Villefana on September 24, 2007, defense attorney Lefkowitz asked Vilafana to do whatever you can to prevent the NPA from becoming public. Villefana forwarded this email to Acosta, Lori and the new West Palm beach manager, noting that I don't intend to do anything with it except to put it in the case file. Acosta responded that he thought the NPA already binds us not to make it public except as required by law or Freedom of Information act, and noted that because the USAO would not proactively inform the media of about the npa. This is the State Attorney's show. Acosta added, in other words, what more does he want? Vilafano responded, my guess is that if we tell anyone else like the police chief or the FBI or the girls that we asked them not to disclose. Lori agreed, noting that there really is no reason to tell anyone all the details of the non prosecution or provide a copy. The Palm beach chief was only concerned that he not get surprised by all this. Acosta responded that he would set up a call on September 26, 2007 to talk about who we can tell and how much. Also, on September 24, 2007, Vilafana emailed the new West Palm beach manager to inform him that once the attorney representative was appointed for the victims, she planned to meet with the girls myself to explain how the system for obtaining relief under US Code 18 section 2255 will work. Vilafana also emailed Lefkowitz stating that she planned to discuss with him what I can tell you, the attorney representative and the girls about the agreement and she assured Lefkowitz that her office is telling Chief Ryder not to disclose the outcome to anyone. Vilafana also provided Lefkowitz with a list of potential candidates for the Attorney Representative position and advanced for an attorney representative who would minimize press coverage of the matter. On September 26, 2007, Villofana emailed Lefkowitz to request guidance on informing the victims about the npa. Can you give me a call? I'm meeting with the agents and want to give them their marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls. Vilafana told OPR that because the government and the defense had not agreed on the attorney representative for the victims. She reached out to the defense at the direction of either Acosta or or Sloman in order to coordinate how to inform the victims about the resolution of the case and the fact that there would be an attorney to assist them in recovering monetary damages from Epstein. Vilafana told OPR that the defense responded to her email by complaining to her supervisors that she should not be involved in such notifications. According to Villefana, Sloman then directed her to have the case agents make the victim notifications accordingly. Villefana directed the case agents to meet with the victims to provide them with information regarding the terms of the NPA and the conclusion of the federal investigation. The case agent told OPR that there was a discussion that Maria and I had as to how we would tell them and what we would tell them. And that was I don't recall, but it was the terms of the agreement. Vilafano believed that if victims were properly notified of the terms of the NPA that apply to them regarding their right to seek damages from Epstein, and he paid those damages, that the rest of the NPA doesn't need to be disclosed. Vilafana anticipated that the case agents would be able to inform the victims of the date of the state court change of plea, and that date had not yet been set by state authorities at the time the first victims were notified by the FBI. Filafana told OPR that it was her belief that because the USAO had had agreed to a confidentiality clause, the government could not disclose the NPA to the general public, but victims could be informed because by its terms, they needed to be told what the agreement was about. Vilafana told OPR that no one in her supervisory chain expressed the concerns that if victims learned of the npa, they would try to prevent Epstein from entering a plea. Within a week after the NPA was signed, news media began reporting that the parties had reached a deal to to resolve the Epstein case. For example, on October 1, 2007, the New York Post reported that Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to soliciting underage prostitutes at his Florida mansion in a deal that will send him to prison for about 18 months and noted that Epstein would plead guilty in state court and that the feds have agreed to drop their probe into possible federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to the new state charge. The case agent recalled informing some victims that there was an agreement reached and we would not be pursuing it federally. In October 2007, for example, the case agents met with victim Courtney Wilde to advise her of the main terms of the non prosecution agreement. According to the case agent. During the meeting, the case agents told Wilde that an agreement had been reached. Mr. Epstein was going to plead guilty to two state charges and there would not be a federal prosecution. However, in a declaration filed in 2015 in the CVRA litigation, Weill described the conversation differently. The agents explained that Epstein was also being charged in state court and made plead to state charges related to some of his other victims. I knew that state charges had nothing to do with me. During this meeting, the agents did not explain that an agreement had already been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein for federal charges against me. I did not get the opportunity to meet or to confer with the prosecuting attorneys about any potential federal deal that related to me or the crimes committed against me. My understanding of the agent's explanation was the federal investigation would continue. I also understood that my own case would move forward towards prosecution of Epstein. In addition, the case agent spoke to two other victims, relayed their reactions to Vilafana via an email. Jane Doe no. 14 asked why Epstein was receiving such a light jail sentence And Jane Doe no. 13 has asked for our victim witness coordinator to get in touch with her so she can receive some much needed professional counseling. Other than that, their response was filled with emotion and grateful to the federal authorities for pursuing justice and not giving up. The case agent told OPR that when she informed one of these victims, that individual cried and expressed a sense of relief. Counsel for Jane Doe 13 told OPR that while his client recalled meeting with the FBI on a number of occasions, she did not recall receiving any information about Epstein's guilty plea. In a letter to OPR, Jane Doe no. 14's attorney stated that although her client recalled speaking with an FBI agent, she was not told about the NPA or informed that Epstein would not face federal charges in exchange for a state court plea. After meeting with these victims, the FBI case agent became concerned that if Epstein breached the NPA and the case went to federal trial, the defense could use the victim's knowledge of the NPA's monetary damages provision as a basis to impeach the victims. The case agent explained to OPR that she became uncomfortable talking to the victims about the damages provision and that as the lead investigator, if we end up going to trial, if Mr. Epstein breached this, that I would be on the stand testifying that I told every one of these girls that they could sue Mr. Epstein for money and I was not comfortable with that. I didn't think it was right. Similarly, the CO case agent told opr, that's why we went back to Marie Villefana and we're not comfortable now putting this out there because it's likely that the case agent and I are going to have to take the stand if it went to trial and and this could be a problem. Vilafana told OPR that the case agents were concerned they would be accused of offering a bribe for victims to enhance their stories and that the defense would try to have Vilafana or the case agents removed from the case. Both the lead case agent and Vilafana told OPR that after the FBI raised with Vilafana a concern that notifying the victims could create potential impeachment material in the event of a breach and subsequent trial, they contacted the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer for advice. Vilafana recalled that during a brief telephone consultation, the professional responsibility officer advised her and the case agent that it's not really that big of a concern, but if you're concerned about it, then you should stop making the notification. In her 2017 CVRA declaration, the case agent stated that after conferring with the USAO investigation, the case agent stopped notifying Victims about the NPA. B October 2007 Defense attorneys object to Government Victim Notifications While the case agents in Villefana ordered the impact that notifying the victims about the resolution of the case might have had on a potential trial. Defense counsel also raised concerns about what the victims could be told about the NPA. As discussed in Chapter 2, after the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007 and the USAO proposed using a Special master to select the attorney representative for the victims, which led to further discussions about the 2255 provision. On October 5, 2007, when defense attorney Lefkowitz sent Vilafana a letter responding to the USAO's proposal to use a special Master, he cautioned that neither federal agents nor anyone from your office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of of the resolution of the case because such communications would violate the confidentiality of the agreement and would prevent Epstein from having control over what is communicated to be identified individuals at this most critical stage. Lefkowitz followed this communication with an October 10, 2007 letter to Acosta arguing that neither federal agents nor anyone from your office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the case. Rather, Lefkowitz wanted to participate in crafting a mutually acceptable communication to the identified individuals. On October 23, 2007, Vilafana raised the issue of victim notification with Sloman stating, 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 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. As discussed in greater detail in chapter two, on October 23, 2007, Lefkowitz sent Acosta a letter stating that Epstein expected to enter a guilty plea in state court on November 20, 2007 and thanking Acosta for agreeing on October 12, 2007 not to contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses or or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter. Shortly thereafter, Sloman drafted a response to Lefkowitz letter which Acosta revised to clarify the inaccurate representations made by Lefkowitz. In particular noting that Acosta did not agree to a gag order with regard to victim contact. The draft response is revised by Acosta stated, you should understand however, that there are some communications that are typical in these matters. As an example, our office has an obligation to contact the victims to inform them that either the Special Master or his designee will be contacting them. Rest assured that we will continue to treat this matter as we would any similarly situated case. In a Nov. 5, 2007 letter, Sloman complained to Lefkowitz that private investigators working for Epstein had been contacting victims and asking whether government agents had discussed financial settlements with them. Sloman noted that the private investigator's actions are troublesome because the FBI agents legally are required to advise the victims of the resolution of the matter, which includes informing them that as part of the resolution Mr. Epstein has agreed to pay damages in some circumstances. That same day, Vilafana emailed Sloman expressing her concern that if we file charges now, cross examination will consist of and the government told you that if Mr. Epstein is convicted, you are entitled to a large amount of damages, Right? Alright, we're gonna wrap this episode up here and then the next episode we're gonna pick up with Part C. 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 picking up where we left off with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's NPA. See October through November 2007. The FBI and the USAO continue to investigate and the FBI sends a notice letter to one victim stating that the case is under investigation. Although Vilafana and the FBI case agents decided to stop informing victims about the npa. The FBI continued its investigation of the case, which included locating and interviewing potential victims. In October and November 2007, the FBI interviewed 12 potential new victims, eight of whom had been identified in a preliminary victim list in use at the time Epstein signed the npa. The FBI reports of the victim's interviews do not mention the NPA or indicate that the victims were asked for their input regarding the resolution of the case. Vilafana acknowledged that she and the case agents did not tell any of the new post NPA signing victims about the agreement because at that point we believe that the NPA was never going to be performed and that we were in fact going to be charging Mr. Epstein. On October 12, 2007, the FBI victim specialist sent a VNS form notice letter to a victim the case agents had interviewed two days earlier. The letter was identical to the VNS form notice letter the FBI victim specialist sent to other victims before the NPA was signed, describing the case as under investigation and requesting the victim's patience. The letter listed the eight CVRA rights, but made no mention of the NPA or the Section 2255 provision. Vilafana told OPR she was unaware the FBI sent the letter, but she knew there were efforts to make sure that we had identified all victims of the crimes under investigation. In response to OPR's questions about the accuracy of the FBI's letter characterization of the case as under investigation, Vilafana told OPR the NPA required Epstein to enter a plea, but by October 26, 2008 and at this point we weren't actively looking for additional charges. But the investigation wasn't technically suspended until he completed all the terms of the npa. D the USAO informs the defense that it intends to notify victims by letter about Epstein's state plea hearing and the resolution of the federal investigation, but the defense strongly objects to the notification plan. In anticipation of Epstein's state court plea. Vilafana reported on November 16, 2007 to Acosta, Sloman and other supervisors that she had learned from FBI agents who met with Assistant State Attorney Belihovlich that the state Attorney's office wanted the USAO to notify victims of the state plea hearing. Belihovlich would still like us to do the victim notifications. The state does not have a procedure like like we do federally where the court has to provide a separate room for victims who want to attend judicial proceedings. So I do not know how many victims will actually want to be present. Bella Hovlich told OPR that she did not recall the conversation referenced by the FBI nor any coordination between her office and federal officials to contact or notify victims about Epstein's state plea hearing. On November 19, 2007, Vilafana decided that to avoid any misconduct accusations from the defense about the information given to victims, she would put the victim notification in writing. She provided Sloman with a draft victim notification letter in which, among other things, she would inform victims of the terms of the resolution of the federal case, including Epstein's agreement to plead guilty to state charges and serve 18 months in county jail and and the victim's ability to seek monetary damages against Epstein. The letter also would invite victims to appear at the state court hearing and make a statement under oath or provide a written statement to be filed by the state Attorney's office. Sloman and Vilafana exchanged edits on the draft victim notification letter, and Villefana also informed Sloman that there are a few girls who didn't receive the original letters, so I will need to modify the introductory portion of of the letter for those Sloman informed Lefkowitz of the government's need to meet its statutory obligation justice for all act of 2004, to notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the agreement and his intent to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 29. Lefkowitz objected to the proposal to notify the victims, asserting that it was incendiary and and inappropriate and not warranted under the justice for all act of 2004. He argued that the defense should have a right to review and make objections to that submission prior to it being sent to any alleged victims. He also insisted that if any notification letters were sent to victims who still have not been identified to us, it should happen only after Mr. Epstein has entered his plea and that letter should come from the attorney representative rather than the government. On November 28, 2007, at Sloman's instruction, Vilafana provided Lefkowitz with the draft victim notification letter, which would advise victims that the state court plea would occur on December 14, 2007. In a November 29, 2007 letter to Acosta, Lefkowitz strongly objected to the proposed draft notification letter, arguing that the government was not obligated to send any letter to victims and until after Epstein's plea and sentencing. Lefkowitz also contended that the victims had no right to appear at Epstein's state plea hearing and sentencing or to provide a written statement for such a Proceeding in a November 30, 2007 reply letter to Lefkowitz, Acosta did not address the substance of Lefkowitz arguments, but accused the defense team of in essence presenting collateral challenges, delaying effectuation of the NPA and asserted that if Epstein was dissatisfied with the npa, we stand ready to unwind the agreement and proceed to trial. Shortly thereafter, Acosta informed the defense counsel star by letter that he had directed prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday at 5pm to provide you with time to review these options with your client. In the letter, Acosta also refuted defense allegations that that Vilafana had acted improperly by informing the victims of the potential for receiving monetary damages, stating that the victims were not told of the availability of Section 2255 relief during the investigation phase of this matter. On December 5, 2007, Starr and Lefkowitz sent a letter to Acosta with copies to Sloman and Assistant Attorney General Fisher reaffirming the NPA but taking serious issue with the USAO's interpretation of the agreement and the use of Section 2255. The Star in Lefkowitz letter asserted it was wholly inappropriate for the USAO to send the proposed victim notification letter under any circumstances and strongly urged Acosta to withhold the notification letter until after the defense was able to discuss this matter with Assistant Attorney General Fisher. The following day, Sloman Said sent a letter to Lefkowitz with copies to Acosta and Villefana asserting that the VRRA obligated the government to notify victims of the US Code 18 Section 2255 proceedings as other relief to which they are entitled. Sloman also stated that the VRRA obligated the government to provide the victims with information concerning restitution to which they may be entitled and the earliest possible notice of the status of the investigation, the the filing of charges and the acceptance of plea. Sloman added, just as in US Code 18 section 3771, these sections are not limited to proceedings in federal district court. Our non prosecution agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed and and our non prosecution agreement does not require the U.S. attorney's office to forego its legal obligations. Sloman also addressed the defense objection to advising the victims to contact Villefana or the FBI case agent with questions or concerns. Again, federal law requires that victims have the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the government in the case. Sloman advised the defense. The three victims who were notified prior to your objection had questions directed to Mr. Epstein's punishment, not the civil litigation. Those questions are appropriately directed to law enforcement. Along with this letter, Sloman forwarded to Lefkowitz for comment a revised draft victim notification letter that was substantially similar to the prior draft provided to the defense. The letter stated that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein had been completed. Epstein would plead guilty in state court, those parties would recommend 18 months of imprisonment at sentencing and and Epstein would compensate victims for damages and claims brought under US Code 18, Section 2255. The letter provided specific information concerning the upcoming change of plea hearing. As I mentioned above is part of the resolution of the federal investigation. Mr. Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to state charges. Mr. Epstein's change of plea and sentencing will occur on December 14, 2007, before Judge Sandra K. McSorley in courtroom 11F at the Palm Beach County Courthouse. Pursuant to Florida Statute Section 960001K and 9211431, you are entitled to be present to make a statement under oath. If you choose, you can submit a written statement under oath which may be filed by the State Attorney's office on your behalf. If you elect to prepare a written statement, it should address the the facts of the case and any extent of any harm, including social, psychological or physical harm, financial losses, loss of earnings directly or indirectly resulting from the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced and any matter relevant to an appropriate disposition and sentence. Sloman told OPR that he was proceeding under the belief that we are going to notify the victims even though it wasn't a federal case, whether we were required to or not. Sloman also told OPR that while we didn't think that we had an obligation to send them victim notification letters, I think Marie and the agents were keeping the victims apprised at some level. On December 7, 2007, Vilafana prepared letters containing the above information to be sent to multiple victims. An email to Acosta and Sloman requesting permission to send them. Sloman, however, had that day received a letter from Sanchez advising that Epstein's plea hearing was was scheduled for January 4, 2008, and requesting that the USAO hold off sending the victim notification letters until we can further discuss the contents. Also that day, Starr and Lefkowitz submitted to Acosta the two lengthy independent ethics opinions supporting the defense arguments against the federal investigation and the NPA's use of U.S. code 18 section 2255. Sloman responded to Vilafana's request with an email and instructing her to hold the letter. Sloman told OPR that he wanted to push the victim notification letter out, but his instruction to Vilafauna was the product of me speaking to somebody, although he cannot be definitive as to whom. Sloman further told OPR that once the NPA looked like it was going to fall apart, the USAO had concerns that if we gave them the victim notification letter and the deal fell apart, then the victims would be instantly impeached by the provision that you're entitled to monetary compensation. On December 10, 2007, Villefana contacted the attorney who at the time represented the victim, who later became CVRA petitioner Jane Doe 2, to inform him that she was preparing victim notification letters. In her 2017 declaration filed in the CVRA litigation, Vilafana noted that she reached out to J2's counsel despite the fact that the USAO no longer considered her a victim for purposes of the federal charges and continue to treat her as a victim because she wanted to go above and beyond in terms of caring for the victims. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode dealing with the topic we're going to pick up with section E. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.