← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 55-58) (4/9/26)
00:46:32
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
Transcript2 lines
- [00:00]
A
The right window treatments change everything. Your sleep, your privacy, the way every room looks and feels. @blinds.com, we've spent 30 years making it 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 purchase plus get a free professional measure@blinds.com rules and restrictions apply.
- [00:30]
B
What's up everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right back to the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's non prosecution agreement 3. Florida Rules of Professional Conduct a FRPC 4.4.1 candor in dealing with others FRPC 4.4.1 prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person during the course of representation of a client. A comment to this rule explains that misrepresentation can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are equivalent or affirmative false statements and whether a particular statement should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances. B. FRPC 4.8.4 Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice FRPC 4.8 4 states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. FRPC4.8 4 prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. As previously noted, courts have determined that FRPC4.8 4 is not limited to conduct that occurs in a judicial proceeding, but can also be applied to conduct in connection with the practice of law. Frederick, 756 South 2nd District, at 87 see also Shankman, 41st South 3rd District, at 172. Chapter 3 Analysis 1 Overview in addition to criticism of Acosta's decision to end the federal investigation by means of the npa, public and media attention also focused on the government's treatment of the victims in the CVRA litigation and in more recent media reports, victims complained that they were not informed about the government's intention to end its investigation of Epstein because the government did not consult with the victims before the NPA was signed, did not inform them of Epstein's state of plea hearing and sentencing, thereby denying them the opportunity to attend, and actively misled them through statements that the federal investigation was ongoing. The district court overseeing the CVRA litigation concluded that the government violated the Crime Victims Rights act and misled the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility and that it was a material omission for the government to suggest that the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute. The government's conduct, which involved both the FBI and USAO actions, led to allegations that the prosecutors had purposefully failed to inform victims of the npa. To prevent victims from complaining publicly or in state court, OPR examined the government's course of conduct when interacting with the victims, including the lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed, Acosta's decision to defer to state authorities, the decision to notify the victims of Epstein of his state plea, and the decision to delay informing victims about the NPA until after Epstein entered his plea on June 30, 2008. OPR considered whether letters sent to victims by the FBI after the NPA was signed can contain false or misleading statements. OPR also evaluated representations from Vilafana that she made to victims in January and February of 2008 and to an attorney for a victim in June of 2008. 2. The subjects did not violate a clear and unambiguous standard by entering into the NPA without consulting the victims. During the CVRA litigation, the government acknowledged that the USAO did not consult with victims about the government's intention to enter into the NPA. In its February 21, 2019 opinion, the district Court concluded that once the government failed to advise the victims about its intention to enter into the npa, a violation of the CVRA occurred. OPR considered this finding as part of its investigation into the USAO's handling of the Epstein case and examined whether, before the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, federal prosecutors were obligated to consult with victims under the CVRA and, if so, whether any of the subject attorneys Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lori, or Vilafana intentionally violated or recklessly disregarded that obligation. As discussed below, OPR concludes that none of the subject attorneys violated a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation without a federal criminal charge in September 2007, when the NPA was signed, the Department did not interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed and the federal courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard. Applying the CVRA before criminal charges were brought pursuant to OPR's established analytical framework does not find professional misconduct unless a subject attorney in intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard. Accordingly, OPR finds that the subject attorney's conduct did not rise to the level of professional misconduct. OPR nevertheless concludes that the lack of consultation was part of a series of government interactions with the victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's treatment of the victims reflected poorly on the Department as a whole and is contradictory to the Department's mission to to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure in its wake. At the time, no clear and unambiguous standard required the USAO to notify victims regarding case related events until after the filing of criminal charges. Although the rights enumerated by the CVRA are clear on their face, the threshold issue is whether an individual qualifies as a victim to whom CVRA rights attach was neither clear nor unambiguous at the time the USAO entered into the NPA with Epstein in September of 2007. At that time, the Department interpreted the CVRA in a way that differed markedly from the District Court's interpretation of the CVRA litigation. The CVRA defines a crime victim as a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a federal offense or or an offense in the District of Columbia. On April 1, 2005, soon after the CVRA was enacted, OLC concluded that the status of a crime victim may be reasonably understood to commence upon the filing of a criminal complaint and that the status ends if there is a subsequent decision not to indict or prosecute the federal offense that directly caused the victim's harm. Beginning with the 2005 OLC guidance, the Department has consistently taken the position that the CVRA rights do not apply until the initiation of criminal charges against the defendant, whether by complaint, indictment, or information. OLC applied its definition to all eight CVRA rights in effect in 2005, but noted that the obligation created by the eighth CVRA right to treat victims with fairness and respect is always expected of federal officials, and the Victims Rights and Restitution act of 1990 indicates that this right applies throughout the criminal justice process. Consistent with the OLC interpretation, In May of 2005 the department issued the 2005 guidelines to implement the CVRA. The 2005 guidelines assigned CVRA related obligations to prosecutors only after the initiation of federal charges. Specifically in the 2005 guidelines stated that that during the prosecution stage the responsible officials should make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims and consider victims views about prospective plea negotiations. The prosecution stage began when charges were filed and continued through all post sentencing legal proceedings. At the time the party signed the NPA In September of 2007, few courts had addressed victims standing under the CVRA. Notably, district courts in New York and South Carolina had ruled that standing attached only upon the filing of federal charges. Two cases relied upon the court. In its February 2019 opinion, Dean and its underlying district court opinion, BP Products, were decided after the NPA was signed. The CVRA litigation and proposed federal legislation, both pending as of the date of this report, show that the interpretation of victims standing under the CVRA continues to be a matter of debate. In November 21, 2019, letter to Attorney General William Barr, a congressional representative stated that she had recently introduced legislation specifically to clarify the victims of federal crimes that have a right to confer with the government and be informed about key pre charging developments in a case such as non prosecution agreements. The CVRA litigation arising from the Epstein case shows the lack of clarity regarding when CVRA rights apply. The district court concluded that CVRA rights applied pre charge, but a sharply divided panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals came to a contrary conclusion, a decision that has now been vacated while the entire court hears the case en bonk. Because the Supreme Court had not addressed the issue of when CVRA rights apply, the lower courts had reached divergent conclusions, and the Department had concluded that CVRA rights did not apply. Pre charge OPR concludes that the subject's failure to consult with the victims before signing the NPA did not constitute professional misconduct because at the time, the CVRA did not clearly and unambiguously require prosecutors to consult with victims before the filing of federal criminal charges. And while the 11th Circuit panel compared the language of the CVRA to the language of the vrra, noting that the VRR A clearly extends victim notice rights into the pre charge phase and opining that the government may well have violated the VRRA with regards to its investigation of Epstein. As a predecessor to the cvra, the VRRA afforded victims various rights and services. However, it provided no mechanism for a victim to assert such rights in federal court or by administrative complaint. Like the cvra, the rights portion of the VRRA established the victim's right to be treated with fairness and respect and the right to confer with an attorney for the government. However, the rights portion of the VRRA was repealed upon passage of the CVRA and was not in effect at the time of the Epstein investigation. The portion of the VRRA directing federal law enforcement agencies to provide certain victim services such as counseling and medical care referrals, remained in effect following passage of the cvra. Furthermore, two of the VRRA requirements one requiring a responsible official to inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled and another requiring that a responsible official shall provide a victim the earliest possible notice of the status of the investigation of the crime to the extent it's appropriate to inform the victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation, may have applied to the Epstein investigation. However, the VRRA did not create a clear and unambiguous obligation on the part of the subject attorneys, as the 2005 guidelines assigned the duty of enforcing the two requirements to the investigative agency rather than to the prosecutors. Moreover, the VRRA did not require notice to victims before the NPA was signed because at that point the case remained under investigation and the victims did not become entitled to pursue monetary damages under the NPA until Epstein entered his guilty pleas in June 2008. Once Epstein did so and the victims identified by the USAO became entitled to pursue the Section 2255 remedy, the USAO furnished the victims with appropriate notification. All right, we're going to wrap up this episode here, and in the next episode we're going to pick up with baby. OPR did not find evidence establishing that the lack of consultation was intended to silence victims. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right back to the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's NPA B. OPR did not find evidence establishing that the lack of consultation was intended to silence victims. During her OPR interviews, Vilafana recalled more than one discussion in which she raised with her supervisors the issue of consulting with the victims before the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007. Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lori, however, had no recollection of the discussions about consulting victims before the NPA was signed, and Menschel disputed Vilafana's assertions. OPR found only one written reference before that date explicitly raising the issue of consultation. Given the absence of contemporaneous records, OPR was unable to conclusively determine whether the lack of consultation stemmed from an affirmative decision made by one or more of the subjects or whether the subjects discussed consulting the victims about the NPA before it was signed. Vilafana's recollection suggests that Acosta, Menshell, and Sloman may have been concerned with maintaining the confidentiality of plea negotiations and did not believe that the government was obligated to consult with victims of about such negotiations. OPR did not find evidence showing the subjects intended to silence victims or to prevent them from having input into the USAO's intent to resolve the federal investigation. Although the contemporaneous records provide some information about victim notification decisions made after the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, records contain little about the subject's views regarding consultation with with victims before the NPA was signed. In a September 6, 2007 email primarily addressing other topics as the plea negotiations were beginning in earnest and almost three weeks before the NPA was signed, Vilafana raised the topic of victim consultation with Sloman. 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 law and the PBD chief wanted to know if any of the victims had been consulted about the deal. Sloman forwarded the email to Acosta with a note saying FYI. Vilafana recalled that after she sent the email, Sloman told her by telephone, you can't do that now. Vilafana also told OPR that shortly before the NPA was signed, Sloman told her, we've been advised that the pre charge resolutions do not require victim notification. Vilafana also recalled a discussion with Acosta, Menchel and and Sloman during which she stated that she would need to get victims input on the terms being proposed to the defense and she was told plea negotiations are confidential. You can't disclose them. None of the other subjects recalled a specific discussion before the NPA was signed about the USAO's CVR obligations. Menschel told OPR he believed the USAO was not required to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA and we did not have to seek approval from victims to resolve the case. Sloman believed the USAO was obligated only to notify victims about resolution of the cases that we handled filed cases. Sloman recalled that because the USAO envisioned the state court resolution of the matter, he did not think that that was a concern of ours at the time to consult with the victims prior to entering into npa. Lori told OPR that he did not recall any discussions about informing the victims about the terms of the NPA or or any instructions to Villefana that she did not discuss the NPA with the victims. He stated that everything the USAO did was or try to do was to get the best result as possible for the victims. Once you step back and look at the whole forest, you will see that if you look at each tree and say, well, you didn't do this right for the victim. You didn't tell the victim this and that, you're missing the big picture. Costa told OPR that there was no requirement to notify the victims because the NPA was not a plea. It's a deferring in favor of state prosecution, acosta said. Whether or not victims views were elicited is something I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused on, at least at this time. Acosta could not recall any particular concern that factored into the decision not to consult with the victims before entering into the npa, but he acknowledged the OPR clearly given the way it's played out, it may have been much better if we had consulted with the victims. As indicated in the contemporaneous records reflect little about decisions made regarding victim consultation prior to when the NPA was signed. Vilafana raised the issue in writing to her supervisors in early September, but there is no evidence showing whether her supervisors affirmatively rejected Vilafana's contention that the USAO was obligated to consult with victims, ignored the suggestion, or failed to address it for other reasons. Possibly because of the extended uncertainty as to whether Epstein would ever agree to the government's plea proposal, OPR notes that its subject interviews were conducted more than a decade after the NPA was signed, and the passage of time affected the recall of each individual OPR interviewed. Although Villefano recalled discussions with her supervisors about notifying victims, her supervisors did not, and Menschel contended that Villefana's recollection is inaccurate. Assuming the discussions occurred, the timing is unclear. Sloman was on vacation before the NPA was signed, so a call with Vilafana about victim notification at that point in time appears unlikely. Any discussion involving Menshel necessarily occurred before August 3, 2007, when it was unclear whether the defense would agree to the government's offer. Supervisors could well have decided that at such an early stage. The there was little to discuss with victims. To the extent that Vilafana's supervisors affirmatively made a decision not to consult victims, Vilafana's recollection suggests that the decision arose from supervisors concerns that the confidentiality of plea negotiations and a belief that the government was not obligated to consult with victims about a pre charged disposition. That belief accurately reflected the department's position at the time about application of the CVRA Importantly, OPR did not find evidence establishing that the lack of consultation was for the purpose of silencing victims, and Vilafana told OPR that she did not hear any supervisor express concerns about victims objecting to the agreement if they learned of it because the subjects did not violate any clear and unambiguous standard in the cvra. By failing to consult with victims about the npa, OPR concludes that they did not engage in professional misconduct. However, OPR includes the lack of consultation in its criticism of a series of government interactions with the victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's treatment of the victims. Although the government was not obligated to consult with victims, a more straightforward and open approach would have been consistent with the government's goal to treat victims of crime with fairness and respect. This was particularly important in a case in which victims felt excluded and mistreated by the state process. Furthermore, in this case, consulting with the victims about a potential plea would have given the usaos greater insight into the victim's willingness to support a prosecution of Epstein. The consultation provision does not require victim approval of the prosecutor's plans, but allows victims the opportunity to express their views and and to be heard before a final decision is made. The lack of consultation in this case denied the victims that opportunity. Three letters sent to victims by the FBI were not false statements but risk misleading victims about the status of the federal investigation. After the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, Vilafana and the FBI separately communicated with numerous victims and victims attorneys, both in person and and through letters. Apart from three victims who were likely informed in October or November 2007 about a resolution ending the federal investigation. Victims were not informed about the NPA or even more generally, that the USAO had agreed to end its federal criminal investigation of Epstein if he pled guilty to state charges until after Epstein entered his guilty plea in June of 2008. Despite the government's agreement on September 24, 2007 to end its federal investigation upon Epstein's compliance with the terms of the NPA, the FBI sent to victims in October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008 letters stating that the case was currently under investigation. In its February 21, 2019 opinion in the CVRA case, the district court found those letters misled the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility and that it was material omission for the government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute. In the discussions throughout this section, OPR examines the government's course of conduct with the victims after the NPA was signed. As set forth in the previous subsection, OPR did not find evidence supporting a finding that Acosta, Sloman or Vilafana acted with the intent to silence victims. Nonetheless, after examining the full scope and context of the government's interaction with victims, OPR concludes the that the government's inconsistent messages concerning the federal investigation led to victims feeling confused and ill treated by the government. In this section, OPR examines and discusses letters sent to the victims by the FBI that were the subject of the district court's findings. OPR found no evidence that Acosta, Sloman or Vilafana was aware of the content of the letters until the USAO received them from the FBI for production. For the CVRA litigation, OPR determined that the January 10, 2008 and May 30, 2008 letters that the district court determined to be misleading as well as the October 12, 2000 letter OPR located during its investigation were standard form letters sent by the FBI victim specialist. As noted previously in this report, after the NPA was signed, Vilafana and the FBI agents continued to conduct their investigation in anticipation that Epstein would breach the npa. Absent such a breach, however, Epstein would enter his state guilty plea and federal investigation would end. Thus, the statement that the case was currently under investigation was literally true, but the omission of important contextual information about the existence of the NPA deprived the victims of important information about the exact status of the investigation. All right, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with a the USAO was not responsible for victim notification letters. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right back to the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's npa. The USAO is not responsible for victim notification letters sent by the FBI in October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008 describing the status of the case as under investigation. The 2005 guidelines charged the FBI with informing the victims of CVRA rights and available services during the investigative stage of a case. During the Epstein investigation, the FBI case agents complied with the agency's notification obligation by hand delivering pamphlets to victims following their interviews and and through computer generated letters sent to the victims by the FBI's victim specialist. The FBI's notification process is independent of the USAO's. The USAO has its own victim Witness Specialist who assumes the responsibility for victim notification after an indictment or complaint moved the case into the prosecution stage. The FBI victim specialist used the VNS to prepare the October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008 letters, a system the FBI regularly employs to comply with its obligations under the 2005 guidelines to inform the victims of their rights and other services during the investigative stage. The stock language of that letter, however, was generic and failed to communicate the unique case specific status of the Epstein investigation at the time. The FBI victim specialist who sent the letters acted at the case agent's direction and was not aware of the existence of the NPA at the time she created the letters. Neither the FBI case agent reviewed any of the letters sent by the FBI's victim specialist. According to Vilafana, the decision to issue the letters and the wording of those letters were exclusively FBI decisions. Although the FBI case agents informed Vilafana after the fact that the FBI victim specialist sent her standard form letter, Vilafana had never reviewed an FBI generated victim notification letter and was not aware of its contents. Vilafana told OPR she was unaware of the content of the FBI letters until they were collected for the CVRA litigation sometime after July 2008. Because the Federal investigation continued after the NPA was signed, the FBI letters were accurate but risk misleading victims rather regarding the status of federal investigation as described previously. Given Epstein's appeal to the department and continued delay entering his guilty plea, Vilafana and other subjects came to believe that Epstein did not intend to comply with the NPA and that the USAO would ultimately file charges against Epstein by April 2008. Acosta predicted in an email that charging Epstein was more and more likely to As a result, Vilafana and the case agents continued their efforts to prepare for a likely trial with additional investigative steps. Among other actions, Vilafana, her supervisors, CEOs, and the case agents engaged in the following investigative activities. The FBI interviewed victims in October and November of 2007 and between January and May of 2008 and discovered at least six new victims in January 2008. CEOs assigned trial attorney to bring expertise and a national perspective to the matter. In January and February of 2008, Vilafana and the CEOs trial attorney participated in victim interviews. Vilafana revised the prosecution memorandum to focus on victims who were unknown to Epstein's counsel. The USAO informed the Department's Civil Rights Division pursuant to USAM Section 83120 of the USAO's ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter involving Epstein and others. Vilafana secured pro bono legal representation for victims whose depositions were being sought by Epstein's attorneys in connection with the Florida criminal case. Vilafana prepared a revised draft indictment. Vilafana sought and obtained approval to provide immunity to a potential government witness in exchange for that witness's testimony. Even after Epstein's state 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. Vilafana told OPR that from her perspective, the assertion in the FBI victim letter that the case was currently under investigation was absolutely true. Similarly, the FBI case agent told OPR the that at the time the letters were sent, the case was never closed and the investigation was continuing. The CO case agent told OPR that as of the time of his OPR interview in 2019, the case was open. It had never been shut down. OPR found no evidence that the FBI's victim letters were drafted with the intent to mislead the victims about the status of the federal investigation. The ongoing investigation language generated by the VNS was generic template language in use nationwide at the time and identical to the contained in standard form notification letters the FBI generated and distributed from August 2006 through the 2007 signing of the NPA. Nevertheless, the FBI letters omitted important information about the status of the case because they failed to notify the victims that a federal prosecution would go forward only if Epstein failed to fulfill his obligations under an agreement he reached with the USAO victims. Receiving the FBI's letter would logically conclude that the federal government was continuing to gather evidence to support a federal prosecution. CVRA petitioner Wild stated during the CVRA litigation 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. Furthermore, when the fact that the USAO had agreed to end its federal investigation in September of 2007 eventually came to light, the statement in the subsequent letters contributed to victims and the public's conclusions that the government had purposefully kept the victims in the dark. In sum, OPR concludes that the statement in the FBI victim letters that the matter was currently under investigation was not false because the USAO and the FBI did continue to investigate and prepare for a prosecution of Epstein. The letters, however, risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim frustration and confusion because the letters did not provide important information that would have advised victims of the actual status of the investigation. Nonetheless, OPR found no evidence that Vilafana or her supervisors participated in drafting those letters or were aware of the content of the FBI's letters and until the department gathered them for production in the CVRA litigation. The use of the FBI form letters that gave incomplete information about the status of the investigation demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of attention to and oversight regarding communication with victims. Despite the fact that the case was no longer on the typical path for resolving federal investigations, form letters continue to be sent without any review by prosecutors or the case agents to determine whether the information provided to the victims was appropriate under the circumstances. Part 4 Acosta's decision to defer to the State Attorney's Discretion Whether to Notify Victims about Epstein State Court Plea hearing did not violate clear or unambiguous standard. However, Acosta exercised poor judgment by failing to ensure that victims identified in the federal investigation were advised of the state plea hearing as set forth in the factual discussion. Within a few weeks of the NPA signing, it became clear that the defense team disagreed with and strongly objected to the government's plan to inform the victims of their ability to recover monetary damages From Epstein under US Code 18, Section 2255 provision of the NPA and about Epstein's state court plea hearing. The USAO initially took the position that it was obligated to and intended to inform victims of both the NPA, including the Section 2255 provision and Epstein's change of plea hearing and sentencing so that victims who wanted to attend could do so. In November and December of 2007, Epstein's attorneys challenged the USAO position regarding victim notification. Ultimately, Acosta made two distinct decisions concerning victim notifications. Consistent with Acosta's concerns about intruding into state action, Acosta elected to defer to state authorities the decision whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing pursuant to the state's own victim rights requirements. Acosta also determined that the USAO was would notify victims about their eligibility to obtain monetary damages from EPSTEIN Under Section 2255, a decision that was implemented by letters sent to victims after Epstein entered his state plea. The decision, which postponed notification of the NPA until after Epstein entered his guilty pleas, was based at least in part on Vilafana and the case agent's strategic concerns relating to preserving the victim's credibility and and is discussed further in section 5 below. In this section OPR analyzes Acosta's decision to defer to the state the responsibility for notifying victims of Epstein's plea hearing and sentencing. OPR concludes that neither the CVRA nor the VRRA required the government to notify victims of the state proceeding, and therefore Acosta did not violate any statutes or department policy by deferring to the discretion of the state attorney whether to notify victims of Epstein's state guilty pleas and sentencing. However, OPR also concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment because by failing to ensure that the state intended to and would notify victims of the federal investigation, he failed to treat victims forthrightly and with the sensitivity expected by the department through counsel. Acosta strongly disagreed with OPR's conclusion and argued that OPR unfairly applied a standard that never before expected of any U.S. attorney. OPR addresses Acosta's criticisms in the discussion below. All right, we're going to wrap up this episode here, and in the next episode we're going to pick up with a Acosta's decision to defer to the State Attorney's discretion. 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 with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's NPA Part A. Acosta's decision to defer to the state attorney's discretion whether to notify victims about Epstein's state court plea hearing did not violate any clear or unaMBiguous standard. In November 2007, Vilafana sought to avoid defense accusations and misconduct concerning her interactions with the victims by preparing a written notice to the victims that informing them of the resolution of the federal case and their eligibility for monetary damages and inviting them to appear at the state plea hearing. Vilafana and Sloman exchanged edits of the draft letter and at Sloman's instruction, she provided the draft to defense attorney Lefkowitz, who in turn strongly objected to the government's plan to notify victims of the state proceedings, which he described as highly inappropriate and an intrusion into state affairs when the identified individuals are not even victims of the crime for which Mr. Epstein is being sentenced. Thereafter, at a time when the USAO believed Epstein's plea to be imminent, Vilafana drafted and sloman signed the December 6, 2007 letter to Lefkowitz, rejecting the defense arguments regarding notification and reiterating the USAO's position that the victims identified in the federal investigation be invited to appear at the state plea hearing. The letter took an expansive view of the applicable statutes by contending that both the VCVRA and the VRRA required the USAO to notify the victims of the state proceedings. These sections are not limited to proceedings in federal district court. Our non prosecution agreement resolves the federal government investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed and our non prosecution agreement does not require the U.S. attorney's office to forego its legal obligations. The letter also asserted that the VRRA obligated the USAO 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 filing of charges, and the acceptance of a plea. Along with the letter, Sloman forwarded a revised draft victim notification letter to Lefkowitz for his comments. This draft victim notification letter stated that the federal investigation had been completed, Epstein would plead guilty in state court, the parties would recommend 18 months of imprisonment at sentencing, and Epstein would compensate victims for monetary damage claims brought under US Code 18, Section 2255. The draft victim notification letter provided specific information concerning the upcoming change of plea hearing and invited the victims to attend or provide a written statement to the state Attorney's office. When Lefkowitz asked Sloman to delay sending victim notifications until after a discussion of their contents, Sloman instructed Vilafana, who was preparing letters for transmittal to to 30 victims, to hold the letter. During his OPR interview, Sloman recalled that he had wanted to push the letter out, but he must have had a conversation with somebody about whether the CVRA applied and based on that conversation, he directed Vilafana to hold the letter. In his response letter to Acosta, Lefkowitz contended that the government had misinterpreted both the CVRA and the VRRA because neither applied to the public proceedings and in this matter, which will be in state court for the purpose of the entry of the plea on state charges thereafter. In his December 19, 2007 letter to Defense counsel mainly addressing other matters, Acosta informed the defense that the USAO would defer to the state attorney's discretion and the responsibility for notifying victims about Epstein's state plea hearing. I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of of the time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court plea and sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and 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 section 3771 applies to notice of proceedings and results of investigation of federal crimes 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. Acosta explained that it was not for me to direct the State attorney or for our office to direct the State Attorney's office on its obligations with respect to the state outcome. Acosta acknowledged that the USAO initially had concerns about the state's handling of the case, but he told opr, that doesn't mean that they will not fulfill whatever obligation that they have. Let's not assume that the state Attorney's office is full of bad actors. Sloman 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 no 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. Sloman told OPR that he had a proceeding under the belief that that we were going to notify the victims even though this was not a federal case. But 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. OPR could not determine whether the State's Attorney's office notified any victims in advance of the June 30, 2008 state plea hearing. Krisher told OPR that the State Attorney's office had a robust and effective victim notification process and staff, but he was not aware of whether or how it was used in the Epstein case. Belo Hovlich told OPR that she could not recall whether victims were notified of the hearing, nor whether the state law required notification for the particular charges and victims at issue. Once the hearing was scheduled, Sloman told Vilafauna to contact PBD Chief Ryder about notifying the victims and on June 28, 2008 she reported back to Sloman that Ryder is going to notify victims about the plea. Vilafana recalled that she sent Ryder a list of the girls identified as victims during the federal investigation, and Ryder said he would contact as many as he could. The contemporaneous records do not show how many or which victims, if any, Ryder contacted, and no victims were present in the courtroom. No victim who provided information to opr, either in person or through her attorney recalled receiving notice of the plea hearing from a federal or state official at the time that Epstein pled guilty in state court. No one in the USAO knew exactly who, if anyone, Ryder or the state attorney's office had notified about the proceeding. Accordingly, Vilafana, who who was present in the courtroom for the hearing, had no knowledge to whom Bella Hovlic referred when she told the court that the victims were in agreement with the terms of this plea. OPR considered whether Acosta's decision to defer to the state Attorney's office the decision to notify the victims of the scheduled date of Epstein's plea hearing constituted professional misconduct. OPR could not conclude that the CVRA or VRRA provisions in question question requiring notice of any public proceeding involving the crime against the victim or that the victim is entitled to attend unambiguously required federal prosecutors to notify victims of state court proceedings. Furthermore, as discussed previously, OLC had issued guidance stating that the CVRA did not apply in cases in which no federal charges had been filed. Moreover, the section of the VRRA requiring notice of court proceedings that the victim is entitled to attend referred specifically to proceedings under US Code 42 section 10606B and 4 which at the time of the Epstein case had become part of the CVRA section 3771A and 2. Because Acosta had no clear or unambiguous duty to inform victims identified in the federal investigation of the state plea hearing, OPR concludes that that his decision to defer to the state attorney the decision to notify the victims of the state's plea hearing and the responsibility for doing so did not constitute professional misconduct. B. Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to ensure that victims identified in the federal investigation were informed of the state plea hearing. Although Acosta or the USAO was not required by law or policy to notify victims of the state's plea hearing, he also was not prohibited by law or policy from notifying the victims that the federal investigation had been resolved through an agreement that included pleas to state charges. As the contemporary records indicate, Acosta consistently expressed hesitancy to interfere in the state's processes or to dictate actions to the state attorney. His decision that the USAO refrain from notifying victims about the state plea hearing and defer to state attorneys judgment regarding whether and whom to notify was consistent with this view. However, OPR found no evidence that Acosta's decision to defer victim notification to the discretion of the state attorney was ever actually communicated to any state authorities or that Acosta recognized that the state, absent significant coordination with federal authorities, was unlikely to contact all of the victims identified in the state and federal investigations or that the state would inform the victims that that it did notify the state plea hearing was part of an agreement that resolved the federal investigation into their own cases. Even taking into account Acosta's views on principles of federalism and the reluctance to interfere in state process, Acosta should have recognized the problems that would likely stem from the passing the task of notifying victims to the state attorney's office and made appropriate efforts to ensure that those problems were minimized. Appropriate notification would have included advising victims identified in the federal investigation that the USAO had declined to bring charges and that the matter was being handled by the state attorney and at a minimum provided the victims with Belojovlik's contact information. Acosta could have interacted with the state attorney or instructed Villefana or others to do so to ensure the state intended to make notifications and in a way that reached the most possible victims and that it had information necessary to accomplish the task. Instead, Acosta deferred the responsibility for victim notifications entirely to the state attorney's discretion, without providing that office with the names of individuals the USAO believed were victims and apparently without even informing the state prosecutors that he was deferring to them to make the notifications if they chose to do so. All right, we're going to wrap up this episode right here and in the next episode dealing with the topic we're going to pick up with Epstein was required by the NPA to plead the only two state charges. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.