← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 59-61) (4/9/26)
00:51:26
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
Transcript16 lines
- [00:01]
A
Forget whatever plans you have this weekend because you're staying at home and playing on spinquest and there's never been a better time to sign up than right now. New users get $30 coin packs for just $10. All the table games you love with hundreds of slot games and real cash Prizes. That's at spinquest.com S P I N Q U-E-S-T.com Spinquest is a free to
- [00:24]
B
play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. 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. Epstein was required by the NPA to plead the only two state charges, and even assuming that each charge was premised on a crime against a different victim and the solicitation charge involved three separate victims, there were thus only at most four victims of the charge state offenses. Without at least inquiring into the state's intentions, Acosta had no way of determining whether the state intended to notify more than those few victims. Moreover, the federal investigation had resulted in the identification of several victims who had not been identified by the PPD during its investigation into Epstein's conduct. Absent information from the usao, the state would not have been in a position to notify those additional victims of the state plea proceeding even if the state attorney had decided to include other victims identified during the state investigation. Furthermore, at the time he made the decision, Acosta had already been advised by Vilafana that Bella Hovlik, in November of 2007 had requested that the USAO notify victims, presumably those identified during the federal investigation about the state plea hearing. Acosta told OPR that it had been his understanding at the time of Epstein's plea that that the victims would be made aware of the proceeding and would have an opportunity to speak. Acosta also told OPR that he expected the state would have notified the victims that that was an all encompassing plea, that the state court sentence would also mean that the federal government was not proceeding. There is no evidence, however, that he verified this understanding with Sloman or Vilafana, let alone the state attorney. OPR found no indication that Acosta ever communicated or directed Sloman or Villefana to to communicate his decision to the state attorney or to provide the State Attorney's office with a complete list of victims identified during the federal investigation. OPR located a draft letter to the State Attorney's office that Vilafana prepared and forwarded to ACOSTA in December of 2007, which did provide such information, but OPR found no evidence that the letter was ever sent and it was not among materials publicly released from the State Attorney's office. OPR also found evidence that both Sloman and Vilafana interacted with the State Attorney's Office in the months leading up to the June 30, 2008 plea hearing, but there's no indication that they discussed victim notification issues with that office and Vilafana. Last minute request to PBD chief rider to notify victims indicates that the USAO had not coordinated with the State Attorney's office. Belihovlick told OPR that no one from the USAO provided her with with a list of victims or coordinated any notification of victims to appear at the hearing. Krischer and Belihovlick were thus evidently unaware that Acosta had decided to leave it to them to decide whether to notify victims about the state proceeding. In the absence of some discussion of which or how many victims the state intended to notify, what the state intended to tell them about Epstein's plea, and whether the state intended to let victims speak at the plea hearing, Acosta had no way to ensure that his assumption about victim notification was accurate. In other words, Acosta failed to plan for how all of the identified victims of Epstein's crimes, both federal and state, would be aware of what was happening in the state court and have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing. OPR did find evidence that Acosta acted for the purpose of excluding victims from the plea hearing, and Acosta's assumption that the state would handle victim notification appropriately was not unsupported. State prosecutors are subject to victim notification requirements under the Florida Constitution, and the state prosecution offices have victim witness personnel resources and processes to help accomplish notification. However, Acosta was aware through the prosecution memoranda, the draft indictment, and email communications from Vilafana that USAO's investigation had expanded beyond those victims identified in the original PBD investigation. Because the state indictment and information appeared to pertain to far fewer than the total victims identified in either the state or the federal investigation, and no one at the USAO was certain which victims were covered by the state charges, it should have been apparent to Acosta that without advance planning between the USAO and and the State Attorney's office, there was a substantial risk that most of the victims identified in the federal investigation would not receive notice of the hearing. Notification to the broadcast's possible number of identified victims could only have been successful if there was appropriate communication between the USAO and the state prosecutors, communication that had previously been lacking regarding other significant issues relating to Epstein. Vilafana and Sloman hastily arranged effort to enlist in the notification process. PBD chief rider, who likely played little role in complying with the state's victim notification obligations in a typical case, was not adequate substitute for careful planning and coordination with the state Attorney's office. Even if the state attorney's office had notified all of the identified victims of the upcoming plea hearing, there was no guarantee that such notification would have included information that that the state plea was resolving not just the state's investigation of Epstein but the federal investigation as well. The state attorney was not obligated by state statutes to inform the victims of the status of the federal investigation and there was little reason to assume Krisher or one of his staff would voluntarily do so, thereby putting the state Attorney's office in the position of fielding victim questions and concerns about the outcome. Furthermore, as both the USAO and defense had differing views as to who could lawfully participate in the state plea hearing, there is no indication that Acosta, Sloman, or Vilafana took steps to confirm that if victims appeared, they could actually participate in the state court proceeding when they were not victims of the charged crimes. Through counsel, Acosta asserted to OPR that because Vilafana and Sloman both told OPR that they believed that state officials would notify the victims, OPR identified no reason why Secretary Acosta should have distrusted his team on these points. Acosta's counsel further argued that Acosta should have been able to rely on his staff to accomplish the victim notification task and thus had no responsibility to personally confirm that Chief Ryder would notify the victims of the hearing. Acosta is correct that under usual circumstances, USAO management played no role in in the victim notification process. However, in this case, the issue of victim notification had been elevated from a role of administrative task to a major area of dispute with the defense. Acosta personally involved himself by resolving the notification dispute with defense Counsel. In his December 19, 2007 letter, Vilafana provided Acosta with a draft letter to state officials that would have opened a dialogue concerning the notification of all the victims identified in the federal investigation. OPR found no evidence, however, that Acosta sent the letter or any similar communication to the state Attorney's office or that he provided Vilafana and Sloman with instructions concerning victim notification other than those contained in his December 19, 2007 letter. Having inserted himself into the notification process, Acosta had a responsibility to ensure that the expectation that that the victims would be notified could be accomplished through the state process. Many victims only learned of Epstein state court pleas when they later received a letter from the USAO informing them that those pleas had resolved the federal investigation and some victims only learned of the state pleas and sentencing from the news media. In the end, although Vilafana and Sloman hastily attempted to ensure victim notification through Chief Ryder, their effort was too little and too late to ensure that victims had the opportunity to attend the plea hearing or were given sufficient information about its significance to their own cases. Although Acosta may have conferred with others about the decision to defer the responsibility for notifying victims to the state attorney, Acosta was responsible for choosing this course of action. OPR concludes that under the unique circumstances its criticisms are warranted by Because Acosta personally decided to change the process initiated by his staff, and although he expected that the federal victims would be notified, he did not take the necessary steps to ensure that they would be. Acosta could have authorized disclosure of the plea hearing to victims even if he did not believe the CVRA required it to ensure that the victims identified in the federal investigation were aware of the state court proceeding. Because the state pleas ended the federal investigation into Epstein's conduct, ensuring that the victims were notified of the state plea hearing would have been consistent with the Department's overarching commitment to treat victims with fairness, dignity, and sensitivity. Acosta's failure to prioritize notification and coordinate communication about resolution of the case to ensure Epstein's victims were given an opportunity to attend the plea hearing and to possibly speak about the impact of Epstein's crimes presented a glaring contrast with Acosta's responsiveness to the demands of Epstein's attorneys, which included the unusual courtesy of allowing them to preview and respond to the USAO's draft victim notifications. This contrast added to the victim's perception that they had been treated unfairly, a view shared by the public. Nothing in the documentary record suggests that Acosta thought through the issue of determining which victims would be notified by the state or that he took any steps to ensure that all of the known federal victims received information about the state plea hearing. Instead, as with his decision to resolve the federal investigation through a state based resolution, Acosta exercised poor judgment when he made critical decisions affecting the federal investigation and the victims, but he also failed to consider the full consequences of of those decisions or what was needed to implement them. Acosta's failure to consider these issues before simply leaving the responsibility for making notifications entirely to the state attorney's discretion reflected poorly on the USAO and the department as a whole. It left victims in the dark about an important proceeding that resolved federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had communicated with victims months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the department intentionally sought to silence the victims by keeping them uninformed about the NPA and resulting state proceeding. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were afforded an opportunity to attend a hearing that was related to their own cases and thus failed to ensure that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity all right, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with five Vilafana did not commit professional misconduct in her oral communication to 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 going to pick up where we left off with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's NPA. 5 Vilafana did not commit professional misconduct and her oral communication to victims and victims attorneys in which she described the case as under investigation but did not disclose the existence of the NPA to some victims. From September 24, 2007, when the NPA was signed, until after Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court plea, the case agents, acting under Vilafana's direction, directly informed only three victims that the government had signed an NPA and that if Epstein complied with its terms, the federal investigation would be closed. During this time period, Vilafana and the case agents interacted with several victims and their attorneys and Vilafana contacted victims attorney Bradley Edwards to encourage him to attend the state court plea hearing, but she did not inform victims or Edwards of the NPA or the resolution of the federal investigation as described in Part one of this chapter. After the NPA was signed, the FBI case agent and co case agent began notifying victims about the npa. After speaking to three victims, however, the FBI case agent became concerned that informing the victims about the NPA and the monetary damages provision would create potential impeachment material for the victims and the agent should Epstein breach the NPA and the case proceed to indictment and trial. As the case agent told opr, I would have to testify and I told every one of those girls that they could sue Mr. Epstein for money and I was not comfortable with that and I didn't think it was right. The case agent and Vilafana consulted with the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer about the matter and thereafter stopped notifying the victims about the NPA and their ability to pursue monetary damages according to its terms. Vilafana advised Sloman by email of her concerns regarding the potential impeachment evidence and telling them one thing I'm concerned about is that if we file charges now, cross examination will consist of the government told you that if Mr. Epstein is convicted, you're entitled to a large amount of damage, right? Explaining the decision in her later CVR declaration, Vilafana said that Epstein's attorneys complained that the victims were receiving an incentive to overstate their involvement with Mr. Epstein in order to increase their damages claim. She concluded that informing additional victims would compromise the witnesses credibility at trial if Epstein reneged on the agreement. Acosta was aware of these concerns as he referred to them in an August 2008 email. We also believe that contacting the victims would compromise them as potential witnesses. Epstein argued very forcefully that they were doing this for the money and we did not want to discuss liability with them, which was a key part of the agreement. The case agents interviewed victims in October and November of 2007 but did not inform them about the NPA.
- [14:59]
A
I'm here with Spinquest where you can play and win from the comfort of your own home with hundreds of slot games and all of the table games you love with real cash prizes. Right now, $30 coin packs are on sale for $10 for new users it's all at Spinquest. That's S P I N Q U
- [15:20]
B
E-S-T.com Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. On January 31, 2008, FBI agents Vilafana and the CEOs trial attorney interviewed three victims including Courtney Wild, and they interviewed at least one more victim the next day. Wild and two others had been contacted by the FBI in the fall or of 2007 and may have been informed about the resolution of the federal investigation. Vilafana told OPR that during the January 31, 2008 interviews she did not specifically tell the victims that there was a signed non prosecution agreement that had these terms. She stated that she would not use terminology such as NPA because most people don't understand what that means. Instead, with respect to the three victims who are, according to Vilafana, had been informed by the FBI about the resolution. She stated 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 it may have to go to trial. Vilafano recalled telling some victims that Epstein was supposed to enter a plea in state court that would end the investigation, but she did not recall distinguishing between the federal investigation versus the state investigation. Vilafana told opr. She explained the case was under investigation, she and the agents were preparing again to file charges and they hoped that charges would be brought. An email from Vilafana to Sloman and Da Costa during this time period reflects that she had such discussions with at least one victim interviewed on this date. The second girl was very upset about the 18 month deal that she had read about in the paper. She would rather not get any money and have Epstein spend a significant time in jail. Vilafana, however, did not recall telling all of the victims interviewed at this time of the state plea. Rather, she likely only told those who knew about the resolution from the FBI. In her own 2015 CVRA case declaration, Wilde stated that she was not told about any NPA or any potential resolution of the federal investigation. I was cooperating in. If I had been told about an npa, I would have objected. Weil further stated in her declaration that based on what the FBI had been telling me, I thought they were still investigating my case. Neither the CEO's trial attorney nor FBI case agent recalled the specifics of the victim interviews. The FBI reports memorializing each interview primarily addressed the facts elicited from the victim regarding Epstein's abuse and did not describe any discussion or about the status of the case or the victim's view about the prosecution of Epstein. When asked whether she was concerned that failing to tell victims about the NPA when she was interviewing them would mislead victims. As previously noted, Vilafana told OPR that she believed she and the agents were conducting an investigation because they continued interviewing witnesses and doing all these things to file charges and prepare for a federal trial. And as Vilafana stated, so to me, saying to a victim the case is now back under investigation is perfectly accurate. Vilafana also was aware that some victims were represented by counsel in connection with civil lawsuits against Epstein, but did not proactively inform the victims attorneys about the NPA. In a 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, victims attorneys Bradley Edward alleged that during telephone calls with Vilafauna, he was asked very specific questions about what stage the investigation was in and Villefana replied that she could not answer his questions because the matter was an ongoing active investigation. Edwards stated 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 complexity. Edwards also stated a fair characterization of of each call was that I provided information and asked questions and Villefana listened and expressed that she was unable to say much or answer the questions I was asking. In her written response to opr, Vilafana stated that she listened more than she spoke during her interactions with Edwards and that due to the uncertainty of the situation and the possibility of a trial, she did not feel comfortable sharing any information about the case. Vilafana also told OPR that because of all 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 victim notification, she felt prohibited from providing additional information to Edwards. Sloman told OPR 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 that this was going to break down and 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 GS, that's going to be instant impeachment for the defense. Acosta told OPR that because Epstein did not plead guilty in October 2007, as the USAO expected, it was a very open question whether the case would go to trial and Acosta thought that where there is no legal requirement, the there has to be discretion to judge how much you can tell the victims and when. Epstein's attorney's conduct during the time period between the signing of the NPA and Epstein's entry of his state guilty pleas illustrated the risk that Acosta, Sloman, and Vilafana, all identified as Epstein's counsel, deposed victims related to the state court criminal charges and civil cases against Epstein. Counsel suggested that the victims were motivated to testify against Epstein but by the government's promise of financial gain. For example, during a February 20, 2008 state deposition of a victim, defense counsel asked her whether the federal prosecutor or FBI agents told her that she was entitled to receive money from Epstein. In her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Vilafana identified that line of questioning as a motivating factor in the government's decision to stop notifying the victims of about the potential for US Code 18, Section 2255 recovery. On June 27, 2008, the Friday before Epstein's Monday, June 30, 2008 state court guilty plea hearing, Vilafana contacted Edwards to inform him about the upcoming hearing, Vilafana told OPR she was not given authorization to contact any victim attorney other than Edwards about the scheduled state plea hearing. In his 2017 affidavit Villavil prepared for the CVRA litigation, Edwards stated that Vilafana gave the impression that she was caught off guard herself that Epstein was pleading guilty or that this event was happening at all. Edwards said in a 2016 court filing that Vilafana told him only that Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges involving other victims, not Mr. Edwards clients nor any of the federally identified victims. Vilafana stated in her 2017 declaration that she never told attorney Edwards that the state charges involved other victims and neither the state court charging instrument nor the factual proffer limited the procurement of prostitution charge to a specific victim. Vilafana told OPR she strongly encouraged Edwards and his clients to attend the plea hearing but could not be more explicit because she was not authorized by the office to disclose the terms of of the NPA. In his 2017 affidavit, Edwards acknowledged that Vilafana did express that this hearing was important but never told me why she felt that way. Edwards claimed that Vilafana's failure to inform him that the guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of a federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement resulted in his clients not attending the hearing. Edwards himself was out of town and and not able to attend the hearing. In his affidavit, Edwards asserted, there was no possible way that I could have believed that this state plea could affect the federal investigation or the rights of my clients in that federal investigation. In wild, the 11th Circuit panel stated that the government seemingly deferred to Epstein's attorneys and their request not to notify the victims about the NPA and that in sending The January and May 2008 FBI Letters to the government, efforts seem to have graduated from passive non disclosure to or at least close to active misrepresentation. Although both the appellate Court and the District court focused on the FBI's letters for which OPR concludes that neither Vilafana Sloman nor Acosta was responsible, OPR considered the Court's analysis in evaluating whether similar representations Vilafana made to the victims whom she interviewed on January 31 and February 1 of 2008 and Edwards were misleading. Therefore, OPR considered whether Vilafana statements that the matter was under investigation and her failure to inform all of the victims whom she interviewed or Edwards about the NPA violated FRPC 4.4.1 A and 4.8.4 C or 4.8.4. D All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right there and in the next episode we're going to Pick up with FRPC4.4.1A prohibits an attorney from knowingly making a false statement. 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 program. In this episode, we're going to pick up where we left off with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's NPA. FRPC4.4.1A prohibits an attorney from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person during the representation of a client. The FRPC defines knowingly as denoting actual knowledge of the fact in question and states that such knowledge may be inferred from circumstances. The comments to FRPC 4.4.1 states that misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements. The comment references FRPC 4.8.4 for dishonest conduct that does not amount to a false statement. Like FRPC 4.4.1A, Rule 4.8.4 requires evidence that the attorney knew the statement in question was false. Under FRPC4.8.4, the intent requirement can be satisfied merely by showing that the conduct was deliberate or or knowing, and the motive underlying the lawyer's conduct is not determined. Instead, the issue is whether he or she purposefully acted. In Feinberg, the court concluded that the prosecutor violated FRPC 4.4.1 and 4.8.4 C&D by deliberately making untruthful statements to a defense attorney despite evidence that the prosecutor intended to help the defendant by making the statements.
- [26:38]
A
You know what? It sucks to be bored, but when I get on my phone and play real casino games on spinquest.com, the time flies by. That two hour wait at the DMV seems like 10 minutes. Play your favorite slots Live blackjack, live craps with a live dealer. New players 30 coin packs are on sale for 10 bucks. Play spinquest.com and you'll never be bored again.
- [27:02]
B
Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited visits BenQuest.com for more details. In this case, Vilafana was fully aware of the signed NPA when she interviewed the victims on January 31 and February 1, 2008, and when she spoke to Edwards on the telephone. But she did not inform them specifically of the signed npa. The question is whether this omission amounted to a knowing false statement or misrepresentation. One difficulty in determining what Vilafana actually said during conversations was that participants were asked to recall many years later. With respect to three of the victims whom she interviewed in January and February of 2008, Vilafana contended that she discussed the agreement with them even if she did not specifically refer to it as an NPA or discuss all of its terms. And as previously noted, there is some contemporaneous evidence supporting her assertion. Vilafana's mention of the agreement and even if not described in specific terms, would have been sufficient to apprise those victims of the status of the federal investigation. Nevertheless, Vilafana did not recall discussing the NPA specifically or in general terms with other victims interviewed at the time, nor did she do so with Edwards or any other victim's attorney. OPR therefore considered whether the omission of information about the existence of the NPA during these interactions with rose to the level of professional misconduct in violation of FRPC 4.4.1 or 4.8.4. OPR evaluated Vilafana's conduct in light of the comments to FRPC 4.4.1 a lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirm statements another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements. The victims and their attorneys were certainly not opposing parties to the usao, but the comment indicates that the rule recognizes that omissions made during discussions with third parties, even of relevant facts, are not always treated as false statements. Here, the evidence does not show that Vilafana knowingly made an affirmative false statement to the victims or Edwards, or that her omissions were the equivalent of affirmative false statements about material facts. First, Vilafana told OPR that she believed the investigation was ongoing and her statement to that effect truthful. And as discussed earlier in this chapter, the evidence shows that Vilafana and the agents did continue to investigate the case until Epstein entered his guilty plea in state court in June of 2008. Vilafana's email correspondence with her supervisors reflects her strong advocacy during that timeframe to declare Epstein in breach and to charge him. The evidence similarly does not show that Vilafana knowingly made affirmative false statements to Edwards when she informed him of the state court plea, although she declined to provide additional information in response to his questions. Second, in reaching its Conclusion OPR considered the full context in which Villefauna interacted with the victims and Edwards Prosecutors routinely make decisions about what information will be disclosed to witnesses, including victims, for a variety of strategic reasons. In many cases, prosecutors must make difficult decisions about providing information to witnesses, and they often cannot fully reveal either the facts or the status of an investigation, even to the victims. The 2005 guidelines advise that in consulting with a victim, prosecutors may be limited to their disclosures because victims are not clients may become adverse to the government, and may disclose whatever they have learned from consulting with prosecutors. Such consultations may be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only nonsensitive data and public information. Vilafana's concern about generating potential impeachment evidence will by informing victims of their potential to recover monetary damages from Epstein, was not unreasonable. Indeed, the case agents initially raised the impeachment issue, and after considering the problem, Vilafana agreed with the agent's concerns. Vilafana raised those concerns with the USAO's professional responsibility officer in October of 2007 after the agents brought the issue to her attention, and she ultimately raised the issue with Sloman and and Acosta as well, neither of whom advised her that those concerns were improper or unsound. OPR also considered that although Villefana had sought to notify the victims in writing of the NPA soon after it was signed, her supervisor, the U.S. attorney, had decided otherwise when authorized to inform Edwards of the scheduled change of plea hearing. She did so, although she did not inform Edwards that the plea was part of a global resolution that would end the federal investigation and the evidence does not show that Villefana acted for the purpose of deceiving Edwards or preventing him from attending the hearing. Had she sought to exclude him from the state proceedings, she could have elected not to inform Edwards at all, or she could have discouraged them from attending the state proceedings. Rather, as Edwards confirmed, Vilafana told him the hearing was important, and Vilafana sought to strike a difficult balance of securing Edwards and his client's attendance and at the state court plea while obeying her management's directive that informing victims of the resolution of the federal investigation should not be done until completion of the state pleas. Therefore, after carefully considering all of the circumstances, OPR concludes that the evidence does not establish that Vilafana violated her obligations under FRPC 4.4.1 or 4A, 4C or D. Nonetheless, as discussed below, Vilafana's interactions with victims and victims attorneys without informing them of the NPA and the potential conclusion of the federal investigation contributed to the likelihood that the victims would feel that the government was intentionally concealing information from them and was part of a series of interactions with victims that led to condemnation of the government's treatment of victims.
- [33:18]
A
Whether it's slots or live dealers, Spinquest.com has the fun and action you're looking for with Spin Quest exclusives Blackjack, roulette, baccarat and even live dice with craps and bubble craps. The games never stop so you don't have to and right now new users get $30 coin packs for just 10 bucks. Play now@Spinquest.com SpinQuest is a free to
- [33:43]
B
play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. 6 the government failed to treat victims forthrightly and and with sensitivity when it failed to timely provide victims with important information about the resolution of federal investigations. Although OPR does not conclude that any of the subjects committed professional misconduct either by failing to consult with the victims before the NPA was signed or in interactions afterwards, OPR's findings are not an endorsement of the government's course of action. The government's interactions with victims confused and frustrated many of the victims, particularly the two CVRA petitioners and the two victims who had unsuccessfully attempted to join the CVRA litigation. As a result, the victims and the public's perception of the matter is that the prosecutors worked with Epstein's attorneys to disenfranchise and silence the victims. It's unfortunate and appears fundamentally unfair to the victims that Acosta and Sloman, after Menschel and Lori departed, took the unusual step of deciding to vet the USAO victim. The notification letters with the defense after the NPA was signed but failed to go beyond the requirements of the CVRA or the 2005 guidelines to consult with the victims before the NPA was signed. This result is contrary to the Department's intent, as set forth in the 2005 guidelines, that Department employees work to minimize the frustration and confusion of the victims of crime that they endure in its wake. When considering the entirety of the government's interactions with victims of OPR concludes that victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the department. Wild's criticisms of the government conduct were based on interactions that are similar to and generally representative of the government's interactions with other Epstein victims and that demonstrate an overall lack of sensitivity by the victims by the government. Wild experienced a series of confusing and inconsistent communications in her interactions with Villefana and the case agents. Weill received Vilafana's letter in June 2007, stating inaccurately that she was a federal victim entitled to CVRA rights. She was interviewed by the FBI in August 2007 but was not told of a potential outcome of a state plea. Shortly after the September 24, 2007 signing of the NPA, the FBI contacted her to inform her of the resolution of the federal case. Nonetheless, on January 10, 2008, the FBI sent her a victims rights letter indicating that the case was under investigation and that some of her CVRA rights may not apply until after the defendant was charged. On January 31, 2008, Villefana re interviewed Wild along with CEOs, attorney and FBI agents and told Wild that the case was under investigation but did not specifically mention the npa, although she may have mentioned the possible resolution. In mid June 2008, when Edwards contacted Vilafana on Wilde's behalf, Vilafana informed him that the case was under investigation but did not mention the NPA. Just before Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court plea, Vilafana informed Edwards about the state plea but did not mention the NPA or the fact that the state pleas would resolve the federal investigation. Edwards then filed the CVRA petition and learned about the NPA signed months earlier and that the federal investigation of Epstein had concluded with Epstein's state guilty pleas. Wild only received access to the NPA when a judge permitted it in August 2008 pursuant to a protective order. After considering this series of interactions, it's not surprising that Wild came away from that experience feeling confused and believing that that she had been misled. All right, we're going to wrap up right here and then the next episode we're going to pick up with. OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Vilafana, Acosta, Sloman, Menshel, or Laurie opted not to consult with 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 picking up where we left off with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's npa. OPR recognizes that the Epstein investigation occurred soon after the passage of the cvra. In the years since, the Department's prosecutors and personnel have become more familiar with its provisions. OPR encourages the Department as a whole to take the issues discussed above into account when providing training and direction to its employees regarding victims rights to ensure that in the future, the Department attorneys actions promote victim inclusion whenever possible. For example, although the division of responsibility between the FBI and the USAO for communicating with victims works efficiently and appropriately in the average case. The USAO failed to consider that in a case involving a pre charged disposition, the victims were receiving inconsistent and confusing communications from the separate entities. In certain cases, such as the Epstein case, prosecutors may need to provide more oversight when multiple department components are communicating with victims to avoid providing confusing and contradictory messages. Conclusion In November 2018, the Miami Herald published an extensive investigative report about the state and federal criminal investigations initiated more than 12 years earlier into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein was a wealthy financier with residences in Florida, New York, and other United States in foreign locations, had coerced girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm Beach, Florida estate. The Miami Herald reported that in 2007, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, R. Alexander Acosta, entered into an extraordinary deal with Epstein that permitted Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and a potentially lengthy prison sentence by pleading guilty in state court to two prostitution charges, immunized from prosecution, Epstein's co conspirators, and concealed from Epstein's victims the terms of the npa. Following the Miami Herald's report and after receiving a congressional request to investigate, OPR initiated an investigation into the allegations that prosecutors in the USAO improperly resolved the federal investigation into the criminal conduct of Jeffrey Epstein by negotiating and executing the npa. OPR subsequently included in its investigation allegations stemming from judicial criticism of the government's conduct relating to federal prosecutors and law enforcement agents interactions with Epstein's victims. In July of 2008, a victim, later joined by a second victim, filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida and Emergency Petition for Enforcement of her rights under the CVRA. In February 2019, the District Court found that the government violated the CVRA by failing to advise victims about its intention to enter into the npa. The court also found that letters the government sent to victims after the NPA was signed, describing the investigation as ongoing, were misleading. During the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands of records from the usao, the FBI, and other Department of Justice components. The records included emails, letters, memoranda, and investigative materials. OPR also collected and reviewed materials relating to the state investigation and prosecution of Epstein, including sealed pleadings, grand jury transcripts, grand jury audio recordings, and examined extensive publicly available information, including depositions, pleadings, orders, and and other court records, and reviewed media reports and interviews, articles, podcasts, and books relating to the Epstein case. OPR conducted more than 60 interviews of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel. Current and former USAO staff and attorneys, current and former department attorneys and senior managers, and the former State Attorney and Assistant State Attorney in charge of of the state investigation of Epstein. OPR also interviewed or received written information from several victims and attorneys representing victims concerning victims contacts with the USAO and federal law enforcement. OPR identified the following five former USAO attorneys as subjects of its investigation based on information indicating that each of them was involved in the decision to resolve the case through the NPA or or in the negotiations leading to the agreement Former U.S. attorney R. Alexander Acosta and former AUSA Jeffrey H. Sloman, Matthew I. Menshell, Andrew C. Laurie, and Anne Marie C. Villefana. Each subject submitted written responses detailing their involvement in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the npa, and decisions relating to victim notification and consultation. OPR conducted extensive interviews of all five subjects. The subjects also submitted comments on OPR's draft report. OPR evaluated the conduct of each subject based on his or her individual role in various decisions and events and assessed that conduct pursuant to OPR's analytical framework. OPR found that Acosta made the pivotal decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through a state based plea and either developed or approved the terms of the initial offer to the defense that set the beginning point for the subsequent negotiations that led to the npa. Although Acosta did not sign the npa, he participated in its drafting and approved it with knowledge of its terms. Therefore, OPR considers Acosta to be responsible for the NPA and for the actions of the other subjects who implemented his decision. Based on its extensive investigation, OPR concludes that the subject did not commit professional misconduct with respect to the development, negotiation, and approval of the NPA. Under OPR's framework, professional misconduct requires a finding that a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard governing the conduct at issue. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that required Acosta to indict Epstein on federal charges or that prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state. Furthermore, none of the individual terms of the NPA violated departmental or other applicable standards.
- [44:26]
A
Forget whatever plans you have this weekend because you're staying at home and playing on spinquest and there's never been a better time to sign up than right now. New users get $30 coin packs for just $10, all the table games you love with hundreds of slot games and real cash Prizes. That's at spinquest.com S P I N
- [44:46]
B
Q U-E-S-T.com Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. As the U.S. attorney, Acosta had the authority under established federal law and department policy to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate as long as his decision was not motivated or influenced by improper factors. Acosta's decision to decline to initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein was within the scope of his authority and OPR did not find evidence that his decision was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations such as Epstein's wealth, status or associations. Evidence shows that Acosta resisted defense efforts to have the matter returned to the state while for whatever result state authorities deemed appropriate and he refused to eliminate the incarceration and sexual offender registration requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta's breakfast meeting with one of Epstein's defense counsel in October of 2007 led to the NPA, which had been signed weeks earlier, or to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein. The contemporaneous records show that the USAO manager's concerns about legal issues, witness credibility, and the impact of trial on the victims led them to refer a pre charge resolution and that Acosta's concerns about the proper role of the federal government in prosecuting solicitation crimes resulted in his preference for a state based resolution. Accordingly, OPR does not find that Acosta engaged in professional misconduct by resolving the federal investigation of Epstein and in the way he did, or that the other subjects committed professional misconduct through their implementation of Acosta's decisions. Nevertheless, OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA constitutes poor judgment. Although this decision was within the scope of Acosta's broad discretion and OPR does find that it resulted from improper factors, the NPA was a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interests that caused the government to open its investigation of Epstein. In Acosta's view, the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein was limited by principles of federalism under which the independent authority of the state should be recognized and the federal responsibility in this situation was to serve as a backstop to state authorities by encouraging them to do more. However, Acosta failed to consider the difficulties inherent in in a resolution that relied heavily on action by numerous state officials over whom he had no authority. He resolved the federal investigation before significant investigative steps were completed and he agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the consideration required under the circumstances. In sum, Acosta's application of federalism principles was too expansive. His view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow and and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use the npa. Furthermore, because Acosta assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the NPA and the other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO were transitioning to other jobs, or were absent at critical junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination and communication during the negotiations and before approving the final npa. The NPA was a unique resolution and one that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided. OPR further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional misconduct with respect to the government's interactions with victims. The subjects did not intentionally or recklessly violate a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA by entering into the NPA or without consulting with the victims because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation without federal criminal charge. Significantly, at the time 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. In addition, OPR did not find evidence that the lack of consultation was was for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of consultation was part of a series of government interactions with victims that ultimately led the 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 minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of crime endure. OPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for for communication sent to certain victims after the NPA was signed that described the case as under investigation, and that failed to inform them of the npa. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who was not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the FBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects. Moreover, the statement that the matter was under investigation was not false but because the government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill the terms of the npa. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims That and showed a lack of attention to oversight regarding communication with victims. After the MPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the state attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the state plea hearing pursuant to the state's own victim rights requirements. Although Acosta's decision was within his authority and did not constitute professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to make certain that the State intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal investigation about the plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important proceeding and resolved the federal investigation and investigation about which the USAO had communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were made aware of court proceedings that were related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure that victims were treated with with forthrightness and dignity. OPR concludes that the decision to postpone notifying victims about the terms of the NPA after it was signed and the omission of information about the NPA during victim interviews and conversations with Victims attorneys in 2008 do not constitute professional misconduct. Contemporaneous records show that these actions were based on strategic concerns about creating impeachment evidence that Epstein victims had financial motives to make claims against them, evidence that could be used against victims at trial and were not meant for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the failure to re evaluate the strategy prior to interviews of victims and discussions with victims attorneys occurring in 2008 led to interactions that contributed to victims feelings that the government was intentionally concealing information from them. After examining the full scope and context of the government's interactions with victims, OPR concludes that the government's lack of transparency and its inconsistent messages led to victims feeling confused and ill treated by the government gave victims and the public the misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the NPA secret from the victims and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting agreement. The overall result of the subject's handling of this case understandably left many victims feeling ignored and and frustrated and resulted in extensive public criticism in some OPR concludes that the victims were not treated with forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the Department. All right, folks, well, that does it for this mammoth beast. And I'll tell you what, if I've learned anything about the OPR and the process that goes into it, I've learned this that all of these OIG reports, all of these Inspector General reports, all of these internal investigations never lead to any sort of change. So what's the point? The whole reason that they do it is so that they can come out and get a narrative on the record and that's what they're doing here. And that's exactly what they did with the OIG report into Epstein's death. And on and on it goes. So you see from getting the whole report yourself that the whole process was straight up garbage. And we're once again left with this question. Who's watching the watchers? All right folks, that's going to do it for this one. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
- [53:57]
A
What's up baby? It's Bretzky and I'm here to tell you that spinquest.com is giving out free sweeps coins. All you got to do is purchase
- [54:06]
B
a 10 coin pack and guess what?
- [54:08]
A
They're going to give you the coins from a $30 coin pack that lets
- [54:12]
B
you play all your favorite games like
- [54:13]
A
Blackjack, Wanted Dead or Wild. And we're talking real cash prizes, baby.
- [54:18]
B
Spinquest.com Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.