← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 48-51) (4/8/26)
00:49:44
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. In the Jeffrey Epstein's MPA E. December 19, 2007, Acosta advises the defense that the USAO will defer to the state attorney the decision whether to notify victims of the state plea hearing, but the USAO would notify them of the federal resolution as required by law. On December 11, 2007, Starr transmitted to Acosta two lengthy submissions authored by Lefkowitz presenting substantive challenges to the NPA and to the background and conduct of the investigation into Epstein regarding issues relevant to victim notification. In his transmittal letter, Starr asserted that the Latest episodes involving Section 2255 Notification to the alleged victims put illustratively in bold relief are concerns that the ends of justice time and time again are not being served. By way of example, Starr complained the government had recently inappropriately provided oral notification of the victim notification letter to one girl's attorney even though it was clear from the girl's recorded FBI interview that she did not in any manner view herself as a victim. In his submissions, Lefkowitz argued that the government was not required to notify victims of the Section 2255 provision. Vilafana's decision to utilize a civil remedy statute in the place of restitution funds for the alleged victims eliminates the notification requirement under the justice for all act of 2004, a federal law that requires federal authorities to notify victims as to any available restitution, not of any potential civil remedies. Despite this fact, she proposed a victims notification letter to be sent to the alleged federal victims. Lefkowitz also argued that a victim trust fund would provide a more appropriate mechanism for compensating the victims than the government's proposed use of US Code 18 Section 2255, and a trust fund would not violate Epstein's due process rights. Lefkowitz took issue with the government's assertion that the USAO was obligated to send a victim notification letter to the alleged victims or even that it was appropriate for the USAO to do so. Lefkowitz further argued that the government misinterpreted both the CVRA and the VRRA because neither applied to a public state court proceeding involving the entry of a plea on state charges. In a letter from Villefana to Lefkowitz responding to his allegations that she had committed misconduct, she specifically addressed the false allegations that the government had informed victims of their right to collect damages Prior to a thorough investigation of the allegations against Mr. Epstein, none of the victims were informed of the right to SUE under Section 2255. Prior to the investigation of the claims, three victims were notified shortly after signing of the NPA of the general terms of the agreement. You raised objections to any victim notification and no further notifications were done throughout this process. You have seen that I have prepared this case as though it would proceed to trial. Notifying the witnesses of the possibility of damages claims prior to concluding the matter by plea or trial would only undermine my case if my reassurances are insufficient. The fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr. Epstein should assure you of the integrity of the investigation. On December 14, 2007, Vilafana forwarded to Acosta the draft victim notification letter previously sent to the defense along with two draft letters addressed to State Attorney Krisher. Vilafana's transmittal email to Acosta had the subject line the letters you requested. One of the draft letters to Krisher to be signed by Vilafana was to advise that the USAO had sent an enclosed victim notification letter to specified identified victims and referred to an enclosed list of the identified victims and their contact information in case you were required to provide them with with any further notification regarding their rights under Florida law. The second draft letter to Krisher for Acosta's signature requested that Krisher respond to defense counsel's allegations that the State Attorney's office was not comfortable with the proposed plea and sentenced because it believed that the case should be resolved with probation and no sexual offender registration. OPR found no evidence that these letters were sent to Krisher. A few days later, in an apparent effort to move forward with victim notifications, Vilafana emailed Sloman stating is there anything that I or the agent should be doing? Vilafana told Sloman that the FBI case agent is all worked up because another agent and the named AUSA are the subject of an OPR investigation for failing to properly confer with and notify victims in an unrelated matter. We seem to be in a catch 22. OPR did not find a response to Vilafana's email in their December 14, 2007 meeting with Acosta and other USAO personnel. In their lengthy follow up letter to Acosta on December 17, 2007, Starr and Lefkowitz continued to press their objections to the USAO's involvement in the Epstein matter. They requested that Acosta review the appropriateness of the potential federal charges and the government's unprecedentedly Expansive Interpretation of U.S. code 18, Section 2255. In a December 19, 2007 response to the defense team, Acosta offered to revise two paragraphs in the MPA to resolve disagreements with the defense and to clarify that the parties intended Epstein's Section 2255 liability to place these identified victims in in the same position as they would have been if Mr. Epstein had been convicted at trial. No more, no less. Acosta also advised that although the USAO intended to notify the victims of the resolution of the federal investigation, the USAO would leave that to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the State proceedings. I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of the time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to the defense as a courtesy. In addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that the CVRA applies to notice of proceedings and results of investigations of federal crimes and as opposed to the state crime. We intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution as required by law. We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes. Acosta told OPR that he would not have sent this letter without running it by Sloman if not other individuals in the office, and records show he sent a draft to Sloman and Vilafana. Acosta explained to OPR that he was not concerned about deferring to Krisher on the issue of whether to notify the victims of the state proceedings because he did not view that as his role or the role of the USAO to direct the State Attorney's office on its obligations with respect to the state outcome. Acosta further explained to OPR that despite the USAO's initial concerns about the State Attorney's office handling of the Epstein case, he did not believe it was appropriate to question that office ability to fulfill whatever obligation they have. And he added, let's not assume that the State Attorney's office is full of bad actors. Acosta told OPR that it was his understanding that the victims would be aware of what was happening in the state court and have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing. Acosta also told OPR that the State would have notified the victims that that that was an all encompassing plea and that the state court sentence would also mean that the federal government was not proceeding. Sloman told OPR that he thought Acosta and Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigil Mandelker had agreed that the decision whether to notify the victims of the state court proceedings should be left to the state. Mandelker, however, had no memory of advising Acosta to defer that decision to make notifications to the state attorney, and she noted that the correspondence OPR provided to me from that time period discussing such a decision demonstrates that all of the reference language came from Mr. Acosta and or his team and that I did not provide, suggest or edit the language. Sloman told OPR that he initially believed that the victims were going to be notified at some level, especially because they had restitution rights under section 2255. But his expectations changed after there was an agreement made that we were going to allow the state, since it was going to be a state case, to decide how the victims were going to be notified. Assistant State Attorney Bella Hovlich told OPR that she did not at any time receive a victim list from the usao. She further said she did not receive any requests from the USAO with regard to contacting the victims. In response to Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter, Lefkowitz asserted that the FBI should not communicate with the victims and that the state, not the usao, should determine who can be heard at the sentencing hearing. Your letter that suggests that your objection to your office proposed victims notification letter was that the women identified as victims of federal crimes should not be notified of the state proceedings. That's not true, as our previous letter clearly states. Putting aside our threshold contention that many of those to whom CVRA notification letters are intended are in fact not victims as defined as the Attorney General's 2000 Victim Witness Guidelines, a status requiring physical emotional injuries to the victim. It was and remains our position that these women may be notified of such proceedings, but since they are neither witnesses nor victims to the state prosecution of this matter, they should not be informed of fictitious rights or invited to make sworn rules, written or in court testimonial statements against Mr. Epstein at such proceedings, as Ms. Vilafana repeatedly maintained they had the right to do. Additionally, it was and remains our position that any notification should be by mail and that all proactive efforts by the FBI to have communications with the witnesses after the execution of the agreement should finally come to an end. We agree, however, with your December 19th modification of the previously drafted federal notification letter and agree that the decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is, amongst many other issues, properly within the aegis of the state decision making. Following a conversation between Acosta and Lefkowitz in which Acosta asked that the defense clarify its positions on the USAO proposals regarding, among other things, notification to the victims, Lefkowitz responded with a December 26, 2007 letter to Acosta on objecting again to notification of the victims. Lefkowitz argued that CVRA notification was not appropriate because the Attorney General Guidelines define crime victim as a person harmed as a result of an offense charged in federal district court and Epstein had not been charged in federal court. Nevertheless, Lefkowitz added that despite their objection to CVRA notification, we do not object, as we made clear in our letter last week that that some form of notice be given to the alleged victims. Lefkowitz requested both that the defense be given an opportunity to review any notice sent by the USAO and that any and all notices with respect to the alleged victims of state offenses should be sent to the State Attorney rather than the usao, and he agreed that the USAO should defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding all matters with regard to those victims in state proceedings. Months later, in April 2008, Epstein's attorneys complained in a letter to Mandelker that Sloman and Vilafana committed professional misconduct by threatening to send a highly improper and unusual victim notification letter to all victims. Alright, we're going to wrap up right there and in the next episode we're going to pick up with Part F. 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 continue on with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's NPAF. January, June 2008 While the defense presses its appeal to the department in an effort to undo the NPA, the FBI and the USAO continue investigating Epstein as described in Chapter two of this report. From the time the NPA was signed through the end of June 2008, the defense employed various measures to delay or avoid entirely implementation of the NPA. Ultimately, defense counsel's advocacy resulted in the USAO's decision to have the federal case reviewed afresh. A review of the evidence was undertaken first by USAO Criminal Chief Robert Signore and then briefly by an experienced CEOs trial attorney. A review of the case in light of the defense challenges, which was then conducted by CEOs Chief Osterbahn in consultation with his staff and with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigil Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, and then by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. Each review took weeks and delayed Epstein's entry of his state guilty plea as set forth below. During that time, Vilafana and the FBI continued investigating and working toward potential federal charges. 1. Vilafana prepares to contact victims in anticipation that Epstein will breach the NPA on January 3, 2008, local newspaper reported that Epstein's plea conference in state court at that point, set for early January, had been rescheduled to March 2008, at which time he would plead guilty to felony solicitation of prostitution and that in exchange for the guilty plea, federal authorities are expected to drop their probe into whether Epstein broke any federal laws. Nevertheless, as Epstein's team continued to argue to higher levels of the Department that there was no appropriate federal interest in prosecuting Epstein and thus no basis for the npa, and with his attorneys asserting that the facts had gotten better for Epstein, Vilafana came to believe that Epstein would likely breach the NPA in January 2008. Vilafana informed her supervisors that the FBI had very tight contact with the victims several months ago when we were prepared to file charges, but all the shenanigans over the past few months have resulted in no contact with the vast majority of the victims. Vilafana then proposed that the FBI re establish contact with all the victims so that we know we can rely on them at trial, Vilafana told opr. At this point, while the case was being investigated and prepared for indictment, I did not prepare or send any victim notification letters. There simply was nothing to update. I did not receive any victim calls during this time. 2. The FBI uses VNS form letters to re establish contact with victims on January 10, 2008, the FBI victim specialist mailed VNS generated victim notification letters to 14 victims, articulating the eight CVRA rights and inviting recipients to update their contact information with the FBI in order to obtain current information about the matter. The case agent informed Vilafana in an email that the victim specialist sent a standard form FBI letter to the remaining identified victims. These 2008 letters were identical to the FBI form letters the victim specialist had sent to victims but between August 28, 2006 and October 12, 2007. Like those previous letters, most of which were sent before the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, the 2008 letters describe the case as currently under investigation and noted that this can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. The letter also stated, we will make our best efforts to ensure you you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights. The FBI case agent informed Vilafana that the victim specialist sent the letters and would follow up with a phone call to offer assistance and ensure the victims had received their letter. A sample letter is shown on the following pages. Villefana told OPR that she did not recall discussing the content of the letters at the time they were sent to the victims or reviewing the letters until they were collected for the CVRA litigation sometime after July 2008. Rather, according to Villefana, the decision to issue the letter and the wording of those letters were exclusively FBI decisions. Nevertheless, Vilafana asserted to OPR that from her perspective, the language regarding the ongoing investigation was absolutely true and despite being fully advised of our ongoing investigative activities, no one in my supervisory chain ever told me that the case was not under investigation. Vilafana identified various investigative activities in which she engaged from September 2007 until the end of June 2008, such as collecting and reviewing evidence, interviewing new victims, re interviewing victims, identifying new charges, developing new charging strategies, drafting supplemental prosecution memoranda, revising the charging package, and preparing to file charges. Similarly, the FBI case agent told OPR that at the time the letters were sent, the case was never closed and the investigation was continuing. The co case agent stated that the case was open and it's never been shut down. Victim Courtney Wilde received one of the January 10, 2008 FBI letters much later in the course of the CVRA litigation. She stated that her understanding of this letter was that her case was still being investigated and the FBI and prosecutors were moving forward on the federal prosecution of Epstein for his crimes against her. Three Vilafana, the FBI and the CEO's trial attorney interview the Victims As Vilafana resumed organizing the case for charging and trial, the FBI case agent provided Vilafana with a list of 19 identified victims we are planning on using in the federal charges and noted that she and her co case agent wanted to further evaluate some additional victims in Washington, D.C. cEOs assigned a trial attorney to the Epstein case in order to bring expertise and a national perspective to the matter. On January 18, 2008, one attorney representing a victim and her family contacted Sloman by telephone stating that he planned to file civil litigation against Epstein on behalf of his clients who were frustrated with the lack of progress in the state's investigation of Epstein. The attorney asked Sloman if the USAO could file criminal charges even though the state was looking into the matter, but Sloman declined to answer his questions concerning the investigation. In late January, the New York Post reported that the attorney's clients had filed a $50 million civil suit against Epstein in Florida and that Epstein is expected to be sentenced to 18 months in prison when he pleads guilty in March to a single charge of soliciting an underage prostitute. Between January 31, 2008 and January 28, 2008, the FBI, which the prosecutors interviewed additional victims and reinterviewed several who had been interviewed before the NPA was signed. In late January 2008, as Vilafana and CEOs trial attorney prepared to participate in the FBI interviews of Wild and other victims, Vilafana informed CEOs Chief Osterbahn that she anticipated the victims would be concerned about the status of the case. On January 31, 2008, Vilafana, the CEOs trial attorney and the FBI interviewed three victims, including Wild. Prior to the interview, Wild had received the FBI's January 10, 2008 letter stating that the case was under investigation. However, according to the case agent, Wild and two other victims had also been told by the FBI in October of 2007 that the case had been resolved. In her 2015 CVRA case declaration, Wild stated that after receiving the FBI letter, she she believed that the FBI was investigating the case and she was told about any NPA or any potential resolution of the Federal criminal Investigation. I was cooperating in. If I had been told of an NPA, I would have objected. In Vilafana's 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Vilafana recalled interviewing wild on January 31, 2008, along with FBI agents and Vilafana told OPR she asked Wild whether she would be willing to testify if there was a trial. Villafana recalled Wilde responding that she hoped Epstein would be prosecuted and that she was willing to testify after the first three victim interviews. On January 31, 2008, Vilafana described for Acosta and Sloman the toll that the case had taken on two of the victims. One girl broke down sobbing so that we had to stop the interview twice. She said she was having nightmares about Epstein coming after her and she started to break down again so he stopped the interview. The second girl was very upset about the 18 month deal she had read about in the paper. She said that 18 months was nothing and that she had heard that the girls could get restitution but she would rather not get any money and have Epstein spend a significant time in jail. Vilafana closed the email by requesting that Acosta and Sloman attend the interviews with victims scheduled for the following day, but neither did so. Acosta told OPR that it wasn't typical for him as U.S. attorney to attend witness interviews and further that no one in the USAO was questioning the pain or suffering of the victims. Sloman told OPR that he himself had never gone to a line assistance victim or witness interview. Vilafana told OPR that although three of the victims interviewed during this period had been notified by the FBI in October 2007 about the resolution of the case, at this point Vilafana did not specifically tell these victims that there was a signed non prosecution agreement that had these terms. Vilafana also told OPR that she didn't talk about money because she didn't want there to be an allegation at the time of trial that the victims were either exaggerating their claims or completely making up claims in order to increase the damages amount. Rather, according to Abvilafana, she told three victims that an agreement had been reached where Epstein was going to be entering a guilty plea, but it doesn't look like he intends to actually perform and now it looks like this may have to be charged and may have to go to trial. Vilafana recalled explaining that the case was under investigation, that they were preparing the case for charging again and expressing our hope that the charges would be brought. Vilafana recalled one victim making a comment about the amount of imprisonment time and why was it so low and Vilafana answered that was the agreement that the office had reached with regard to the victims Vilafana interviewed who had not received an FBI notification In October of 2007, Vilafana recalled discussing one victim's safety concerns, but not whether they discussed the agreement. She recalled telling another victim that we thought we had reached an agreement with Epstein and then we didn't, but was pretty sure that she did not mention the agreement. During the interview of the third victim, Vilafana explained that she likely did not discuss the agreement because at that point I just felt like it was non existent. The victim didn't know anything about it beforehand and as far as I could tell it was going to end up being thrown onto the heap and I didn't want to. If you tell People, oh, look, he's already admitted that he's guilty. Like, I didn't want that to color his statement. I wanted to get the facts of the case. The CEO's trial attorney told OPR that she did not recall any discussions with the victims about the NPA or, or the status of the case. She did remember explaining the significance of the prosecution to one victim who did not think anything should happen to Epstein. The FBI case agent told OPR that she did not recall the January 2008 interviews. OPR located notes to an FBI interview report stating that one of the victims wanted another victim to be prosecuted. Attorneys for the two victims other than Wild, who had been notified by the FBI in October 2007 about the resolution of the case, informed OPR that as of 2020, their clients had no memory of meeting with prosecutors and did not recall learning any information about Epstein's guilty plea until after the plea was entered on June 30, 2008. When asked whether she was concerned about her statements and they would mislead the victims, Vilafana told opr, from my perspective, we were conducting an investigation. It was an investigation that was going to lead to an indictment. You know, I was interviewing witnesses, I was issuing legal processes. I was doing all these things to take the case to a federal indictment and a federal trial. To me, saying to a victim, the case is now back under investigation is perfectly accurate. Alright folks, we're going to wrap up this episode right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with four February through March 2008. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in 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. 4. February, March 2008 Vilafana takes additional steps to prepare for a prosecution of Epstein, arranges for pro bono attorneys for victims and cautions about continued delay. In February of 2008, Vilafauna revised the prosecution memorandum and supplemental memorandum. Vilafauna removed some victims known to Epstein from PBD investigation and others subject to impeachment as a result of civil suits they filed against Epstein, added newly discovered victims and made changes to the proposed indictment. While the defense appealed the USAO's decision to prosecute Epstein, the the higher levels of the department, Vilafana sought help for her victims whom defense investigators were harassing and attempting to subpoena for depositions as part of Epstein's defense. In civil lawsuits that some victims had brought against him, as well as purportedly in connection with the state criminal case. Vilafana reported to her supervisors that she was able to locate a national Crime Victim Service organization to provide attorneys for the victims and and the FBI victim specialist contacted some victims to provide contact information for the attorneys. During this period, an attorney from the victim service organization was able to help Courtney Wilde avoid an improper deposition. Vilafana also informed her supervisors, including Sloman, that one of the victims tried to commit suicide last week and advocated aggressively for a resolution to the case. I just can't stress enough how important it is for these girls to have resolution in this case. The please be patient answer is really wearing thin, especially when Epstein's group is still on the attack while we are forced to wait on the sidelines. 5 March through April 2008 Vilafauna continues to prepare for filing federal charges. Vilafauna continued to revise the proposed charges by adding new victims and and removing others who had filed civil suits against Epstein. Vilafana also prepared search warrants for digital camera memory cards seized by PBD in order to have them forensically examined for deleted images that could contain CP. By early April 2008, as the defense pursued its appeal to the department's criminal division, Acosta predicted in an email to Vilafana and Sloman that federal charges against Epstein were were more and more likely. Villefana asked Osterbahn for help to move this criminal Division review process along, noting that the defense continued to undermine the government's case by deposing the victims under the guise of trial prep for the state case and that the agents and one of the victims were losing their patience. On April 24, 2008, Vilafana emailed Sloman and the USAO Criminal Division chief, Senor, asking whether she had the green light to file charges and raising the same concern she had expressed to Osterbahn. Vilafana further cautioned that although she was planning to file charges on May 6, if that was not going to happen, then we all need to meet with the victims, the agents, and the police officers to decide how the case will be resolved and to provide them with an explanation for the delay. Because the department's Criminal Division did not conclude its review of Epstein's appeal by May 6. However, Vilafana did not file charges that day. Part 8 USAO supervisors consider CVRA Obligations in an unrelated matter and in light of a new 5th Circuit opinion during the period after the NPA was signed and before Epstein complied with the NPA by entering his state guilty pleas, the USAO supervisors were explicitly made aware of a conflict between the Department position that CVRA victims rights attached upon the filing of a criminal charge and a new federal appellate ruling to the contrary. The contemporaneous communications confirm that in 2008, Acosta and Sloman were aware of the Department's policy regarding the issue unrelated to the Epstein investigation. On April 18, 2008, Acosta and Sloman received a citizen complaint from an attorney who requested to meet with them regarding his belief that the Florida Bar had violated his First Amendment rights. The attorney asserted that the CVRA guaranteed him an absolute right to meet with the USAO officials because he believed that he was the victim of a federal crime. Acosta forwarded the message to the USAO Appellate Division Chief who informed Acosta and Sloman that According to the 2005 guidelines, our obligations are under the CVRA are not triggered until charges are filed. On April 24, 2008, the Appellate Division Chief emailed Acosta and Sloman stating that she had confirmed with DOJ that her reading of the 2005 guidelines is correct and that our obligations under the CVRA are not triggered until the case is filed. On May 7, 2008, the Appellate Division Chief sent Acosta and Sloman to according a copy of U.S. court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opinion issued that day holding that of victim's CVRA rights attached prior to the filing of criminal charges. The Appellate Division Chief noted that although the holding conflicted with the 2005 guidelines, the court's opinion makes sense. Gein involved in federal prosecution arising from a 2005 explosion at an oil refinery operated by BP Products in North America and incorporated that killed 15 people and injured more than 170. Before bringing criminal charges, the government negotiated a guilty plea with BP without notifying the victims. The government filed a sealed motion alerting the District court to the potential plea and claiming that the consultation with all the victims was impractical and that such notification would result in media coverage that would undermine the plea negotiations. The court then entered an order prohibiting the government from notifying the victims of the pending plea agreement until after it had been signed by the parties. Thereafter, the government filed a criminal information. The government and BP signed the plea agreement and the government mailed notices of the plea hearing to the victims informing them of their right to be heard. One month later, 12 victims asked the court to reject the plea because it was entered into in violation of their rights under the cvra. The District court denied their motion but concluded that the CVRA rights to confer with the prosecutor in the case and to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's dignity Privacy vested Prior to the initiation of the charges, the district court noted that the legislative history reflected a view that the right to confer was intended to be broad as well as being a mechanism to ensure that victims were treated with fairness. In denying the victims relief, the Fifth Circuit nevertheless concluded that the district court failed to accord the victims the rights conferred by the cvra. In particular, the Fifth Circuit cited the district court's acknowledgment that there are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway. The Fifth Circuit also noted that such consultation was not an infringement on the government's independent prosecutorial discretion, but it is only a requirement that the government confer in some reasonable way with the victims before ultimately exercising its broad discretion. In the wake of the Dean opinion, two department components wrote separate memoranda to the Solicitor General with the opposing views concerning whether the CVRA rights to confer with the prosecution vests prior to the initiation of a prosecution. June 2008 Vilafana pre plea contacts with the attorney representing the victims who later became the CVRA petitioners. According to an affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation by her attorney, Bradley Edwards, Wild retained Edwards in June 2008 to represent her because she was unable to get anyone from the USAO to tell her what was actually going on with the federal criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein. Vilafana told OPR that Wild did not contact her directly and she was not aware of an instance in which Wild asked a question that wasn't answered of anyone in the USAO or the FBI case agents. Edwards contacted Vilafana by email and telephone in mid June stating that he had information and concerns that he would like to share. In his affidavit, Edwards alleged that during multiple telephone calls with Vilafauna, he asked very specific questions about what stage the investigation was in, and Vilafana replied that she could not answer his questions because the matter was ongoing, active investigation. Edwards attested that Vilafana gave him the impression that the federal investigation was ongoing, very expansive, and continuously growing, both in the number of identified victims and in complexity. In her written response to opr, Vilafana said that she listened more than she spoke during these interactions with Edwards, which occurred before the state court plea. Given the uncertainty of the situation, Epstein was still challenging our ability to prosecute him, federally, pressing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and trying to negotiate better plea terms while the agents My supervisors and I were all moving towards filing charges. I did not feel comfortable sharing any information about the case. It's also my practice not to talk about status before the grand jury. In her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Vilafana explained that during these exchanges, Vilafana did not inform Edwards of the existence of the NPA because she did not know whether the NPA remained viable at the time or whether Epstein would enter the state court guilty plea that would trigger the npa. Vilafana told OPR that she did not inform Edwards about the NPA because it was confidential and because the case was under investigation and leading towards the filing of charges. Vilafana recalled mentioning the conversation to her supervisors and the case agents because she thought he was somebody who could be of assistance to us and could perhaps persuade Alex Acosta that this was a case that should be prosecuted. Nevertheless, when OPR asked Vilafana why she did not inform Edwards of the same information that the FBI and she provided the wild in October of 2007 and January 2008, Vilafana explained that she felt prohibited at the time I spoke with him, you know, there had been all this letter writing, all of these concerns and instructions that I had been given by Alex and Jeff not to disclose things further and not to have any involvement in a victim notification. And so I felt like that prohibited me from telling him about the existence of the npa. All right, 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 continue with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's NPA. 10. June 2008 efforts to notify victims about the June 30, 2008 plea hearing. The Epstein team's appeals through the department ended on June 23, 2008, when the Deputy Attorney General determined that federal prosecution of this case is appropriate and Epstein's allegations of prosecutorial misconduct did not rise to a level that would undermine such a decision. Immediately thereafter, at Sloman's instruction, Villefana notified Lefkowitz that Epstein had until the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement, including entry of a guilty plea, sentencing and surrendering to begin his sentence of imprisonment. That same day, Vilafana made plans to file charges. On July 1, 2008 if Epstein did not enter his guilty plea by the June 30 deadline. On Friday, June 27, 2008, Vilafana received a copy of the proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea hearing was scheduled for 8:30am on Monday, June 30, 2008. Also on that Friday, Vilafana submitted to Sloman and Criminal Division Chief Sr a final final proposed federal indictment of Epstein. Vilafana and the FBI finalized the government's victim list that they intended to disclose for Section 225 purposes to Epstein. After the plea and at Sloman's instruction, Vilafana contacted PB chief writer to ask him to notify the victims of the plea hearing. Vilafana told OPR that Sloman said Chief Ryder could contact the victims from the state case and tell them about the plea. On Saturday, June 28, 2008, Vilafana emailed Sloman to inform him that Chief Ryder is going to notify the victims about the plea. Vilafana told OPR that before the state plea hearing, she sent Ryder a list of the victims, including their telephone numbers to notify and asked him to destroy the list. Vilafana recalled that Ryder told her that he would try to contact as many as he could and that he would destroy the list afterwards. Vilafana did not recall being asked to provide a list of all victims to the state's Attorney's Office. In his 2009 deposition, Ryder stated that Vilafana sent him a letter around the time of the sentencing listing the victims in the federal investigation and that she asked him to destroy the letter after he reviewed it. Ryder recalled that the requested the list because he was aware that the state grand jury's indictment of Epstein did not include all of the victims that the PBD had identified and he wanted to make sure that some prosecution body had considered all of the victims. In her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villefana stated that she and the PBD attempted to notify the victims about the June 30 hearing in the short time available to us. In her 2008 declaration, however, Vilafana conceded that all known victims were not notified. Vilafana told OPR that Edwards was the only victim attorney she was authorized to contact. She thought probably by sloman about the June 30, 2008 plea hearing because Edwards had expressed a specific interest in the outcome, vilafano recalled. I was told that I could inform Edwards of the plea date, but I still couldn't inform him of the NPA in her 2008 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Vilafana stated that she called Edwards and informed them of the plea hearing scheduled for Monday and Vilafana stated that Edwards told her that he could not attend the hearing but someone would be present. In a later filing in the CVRA litigation, however, Edwards asserted that Vilafana told him that only the Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges and involving other victims, not Mr. Edwards clients or any other of the federally identified victims. Edwards further claimed that because Vilafana failed to inform him that the guilty plea in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement, his client did not attend the hearing. Vilafana told OPR that her expectation was that the state plea proceeding would allow Edwards and his clients the ability to comment on on the resolution. My expectation of what was going to happen at the plea was that it would be like a federal plea where there would be a factual proffer that was read and where the judge would ask if there was any victims present who wanted to be heard. And at that point if Brad Edwards wanted to address the court or if his clients wanted to address the court, they would be given the opportunity to do so. Sloman told OPR that he did not recall directing Vilafauna to contact anyone about the plea hearing or or directing her specifically not to contact anyone about it. Acosta told OPR that he believed the state would notify the victims of the all encompassing plea resolving the federal case and the victims would have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing. Nevertheless, Acosta did not know whether the state victims overlapped with the federal victims or whether the USAO shared that list with him. Belafana told OPR that she and Acosta was understood the state would notify the state victims, but that neither of them were aware that the state would only be believed they had one victim. Vilafana told OPR that there was very little communication between the USAO and the state Attorney's office and although she discussed a factual proffer with the state attorney's office and the fact that the federal investigation had identified additional victims, she did not recall discussing who the specific people were that they considered victims in that state case. Sloman told OPR that the public perception that we tried to hide the fact of the results of this resolution from the victims was incorrect. He explained, even though we didn't have a legal obligation, I felt that the victims were going to be notified and the state was going to fulfill that obligation. And even as another fail safe, the victims would be notified of the restitution mechanism that we had set up on their behalf. Sloman acknowledged that although neither the NPA terms nor the CVRA prevented the USAO from exercising its discretion to notify the victims, it was of concern that this was going to break down and the result in us prosecuting Epstein and that the victims were going to be witnesses and if we provided a victim notification indicating hey, you're going to get 150,000, that's going to be instant impeachment for the defense. When asked why the USAO did not simply notify the victims of the change of plea hearing, Sloman responded that he was more focused on the restitution provisions. I didn't get the sense that the victims were overly interested in showing up at the change of plea. Also in late June, Vilafana drafted a victim notification letter concerning the June 30, 2008 plea. Vilafana told OPR that because Mr. Acosta had agreed in December 2007 that we would not provide written notice of the state change of plea, the written victim notifications were prepared to be sent immediately following Epstein's guilty plea. As she did with prior draft victim notification letters, Vilafana provided the draft to the defense for comments. Although Epstein's plea hearing was set for June 30, 2008, Vilafana took steps to facilitate the filing of federal charges on July 1, 2008 in the event he did not plead guilty to state charges. OPR reviewed voluminous Epstein related files that the state Attorney's office made available online, but OPR was unable to locate any document establishing that before the hearing date, the state informed victims of the June 30, 2008 plea deal. On March 12, 2008, the state attorney's office issued trial subpoenas to three victims and one non law enforcement witness, commanding the individuals to remain on call. During the week of July 8, 2008, however, the Palm Beach County Sheriff was unable to serve one of the victims in person because the victim was away at college. June 30, 2008 Epstein enters his guilty pleas in a state court hearing at which no victims were present. On June 30, 2008, Epstein appeared in state court in West Palm beach with his attorney, Jack Goldberger, and he pled guilty to information charging him with procuring a person under 18 for prostitution, as well as the indictment charging him with felony solicitation of prostitution. The information charged that between August 1, 2004 and October 9, 2005 Epstein did knowingly and unlawfully procure for prostitution or cause to be prostituted a person under the age of 18 years and referred to no other victims. The indictment did not identify any victims and alleged only that Epstein engaged in the charged conduct on three occasions between August 1, 2004 and October 31, 2005. Although the charges did not indicate whether they applied to multiple victims, during the hearing, Assistant State Attorney Belojovlik informed the court that there are several victims. When the court asked Belihovlik whether the victims in both these cases were in agreement with the terms of this plea, Belihovlic replied, I have spoken to several myself and I have spoken to counsel through counsel as to the other victim and I believe yes. The court also asked Bellajovlik if the juvenile victim's parents or guardian agreed with the plea, and Bella Hovlic stated that because the victim was no longer under the age of 18, Belihovlick spoke with the victim's counsel who agreed with the plea agreement. Both Vilafana and the FBI case agent were present in the courtroom gallery to observe the plea hearing. Later that day, Villefana met with Goldberger and gave him the list of 31 individuals the government was prepared to name as victims and to whom the 2255 provision applied. In her 2015 CVRA case declaration, Wild stated, I did not have any reason to attend that hearing because no one told me that this guilty plea was related to Epstein's investigation of Epstein's abuse of me. She stated that she would have attended and tried to object to the judge and prevent that plea from going forward and had she known that the state plea had some connection to blocking the prosecution of my case. Similarly, CVRA petitioner Jane Doe Number two stated that no one notified me that Epstein's plea had anything to do with my case against him. An attorney who represented several victims, including one whom the state had subpoenaed for the potential jury trial, told OPR that he was present in court on June 30, 2008, in order to serve a complaint upon Epstein in connection with the civil lawsuit brought on behalf of one of his clients, the USAO had not informed him about the plea hearing. Moreover, the attorney informed OPR that although one of the victims he represented had been interviewed in the PBD investigation and had been deposed by Epstein's attorneys in the state case, with the Assistant State Attorney present, he did not recall receiving any Notice of the June 30, 2008 plea from the State Attorney's office. Similarly, another of the victims the state had subpoenaed for the July trial told OPR through her attorney that she received subpoenas from the state attorney's office but she was not invited to or aware of the state plea hearing. Belihovlick told OPR that she did not recall whether she contacted any of the girls to appear at the hearing and she noted that given the charge of solicitation of prostitution they may not have technically been victims for purposes of notice under Florida law but rather witnesses. On July 24, 2008 the State Attorney's office sent letters to two victims stating that the case was closed on June 26, 2008. Although the plea occurred on June 30, 2008 and listed Epstein's sentence, the letters did not mention the NPA or the federal investigation. All right folks we're going to wrap up right here and then the next episode we're going to pick up with significant post plea developments. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.