Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Marie Villafana And Her Defense Of The NPA (Part 3)

Transcript

Marie Villafana And Her Defense Of The NPA (Part 3) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:02
  Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, were picking up where he
• 0:06
  left off with the Marieville Fauna. Affid David about the CVRA.
• 0:11
  In June two thousand and nine, while Jane DO one
• 0:13
  and Jane do two and many other victims were pursuing
• 0:16
  their civil suits against Epstein, and while the instant case
• 0:19
  was pending, the court asked me to address an issue
• 0:22
  related to the NPA and the civil suits. With Counsel
• 0:26
  for Petitioners present, I informed the court that the non
• 0:29
  prosecution agreement sought to do one thing, which was to
• 0:32
  place the victims in the same position they would have
• 0:35
  been if mister Epstein had been convicted of the federal
• 0:38
  offenses for which he was investigated, and that if he
• 0:42
  had been federally prosecuted and convicted, the victims would have
• 0:45
  been entitled to restitution regardless of how long ago the
• 0:49
  crimes were committed, regardless of how old they were at
• 0:51
  the time and how old they were today or at
• 0:55
  the time of the conviction, and that also would have
• 0:57
  made them eligible for damages under US Code eighteen, section
• 1:01
  twenty two to fifty five, and so our ideal was.
• 1:05
  Our hope was that we could set up a system
• 1:07
  that would allow these victims to get restitution without having
• 1:10
  to go through what civil litigation will expose them to.
• 1:14
  You have a number of girls who are very hesitant
• 1:16
  about even speaking to authorities about this because of the
• 1:19
  trauma that they have suffered and about the embarrassment that
• 1:22
  they were afraid would be brought upon themselves and upon
• 1:25
  their families. So we do, through the non prosecution agreement,
• 1:29
  try to protect their rights while also protecting their privacy.
• 1:34
  None of the victim's attorneys who were present, including petitioner's counsel,
• 1:38
  disputed my statement, and that statement remains true today. The
• 1:42
  investigative team, the FBI's victim witness coordinator, and I all
• 1:47
  proceeded with a victim first approach, and we all used
• 1:50
  our best efforts to protect the victims and accord them
• 1:52
  their rights. Petitioners allege that I did not give their
• 1:56
  now professed desires to have Epstein prosecuted sufficient weight, but
• 2:00
  they never communicated those desires to me or the FBI agents,
• 2:04
  and my role was to evaluate the entire situation, consider
• 2:08
  the input received from all the victims, and allow the
• 2:11
  office to exercise its prosecutorial discretion. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion also
• 2:17
  suggests that some of the terms of the NPA or
• 2:20
  my actions were improper. First, plea negotiations, like settlement negotiations,
• 2:26
  whether between the parties in the instant case or between
• 2:29
  Jane DO one and Jane DO two and Epstein, are
• 2:31
  normally kept confidential. Rule eleven C, one of the Federal
• 2:35
  Rules of Criminal Procedure, prohibits judicial involvement and plea negotiations,
• 2:40
  and the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that there is a
• 2:42
  bright line rule that court should not offer any comments
• 2:46
  on plea negotiations. Likewise, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure sixty
• 2:50
  requires confidentiality for persons subject to a grand jury investigation.
• 2:55
  My recommendations to opposing counsel to limit any plea agreement
• 2:59
  to its essential term, rather than disclosing the reasons behind
• 3:02
  those terms, and to exclude the names of persons who
• 3:05
  would not be parties to the agreement was in keeping
• 3:08
  with those general policies. Finally, when at an impasse in negotiations,
• 3:13
  a change of venue can be beneficial, such as when
• 3:16
  settlement conferences are held in a judge's chambers or a
• 3:19
  mediator's office rather than in the office of one of
• 3:22
  the parties. My suggestion to meet Epstein's council off campus
• 3:27
  was in no way improper. It was simply an effort
• 3:30
  to facilitate a resolution through a meeting at a neutral location,
• 3:33
  but that meeting never even occurred. On the other hand,
• 3:37
  during the course of the investigation, I routinely traveled to
• 3:40
  meet with victims at their homes, their jobs, and at
• 3:42
  coffee shops. With regard to paragraph twenty nine of DE
• 3:46
  three sixty one, copies of emails sent to and from
• 3:50
  my personal email address were produced in discovery pursuing to
• 3:54
  my agreement with mister Edwards Council for petitioners personal email
• 3:58
  addresses were redacted. Some of those emails were included in
• 4:02
  the exhibits attached to Petitioner's motion. In the end, the
• 4:05
  Office and I agreed that no federal misdemeanor charges adequately
• 4:09
  addressed the facts of the case, and the Office decided
• 4:12
  that instead it would forego federal prosecution if Epstein pled
• 4:16
  guilty to applicable state offenses that would require sex offender
• 4:20
  registration and an eighteen month jail term, and if Epstein
• 4:24
  also agreed to allow the identified victims to obtain an
• 4:27
  uncontested recovery of damages in lieu of the restitution that
• 4:30
  would have been available under federal law. Also with regard
• 4:34
  to the confidentiality of the non prosecution agreement, the statements
• 4:37
  contained in paragraph thirty one of D three to sixty
• 4:40
  one or accurate. As courts have acknowledged, MPAs are not
• 4:44
  made of a public court file, but are maintained by
• 4:47
  a prosecutor's office. The Privacy Act, Federal Krimp sixte, and
• 4:52
  other statutes and rules keep private files related to subjects
• 4:55
  of investigations. There are some laws, including Freedom of Information Act,
• 5:00
  that limit confidentiality of those files, but generally speaking, there
• 5:04
  is no public right of access to the office's files. Thus,
• 5:07
  the assurance that I would not distribute, essentially leak the
• 5:11
  NPA was simply an assurance that I intended to abide
• 5:14
  by office and department policy. In the law. The NPA
• 5:18
  made clear that the office would not disclose or would
• 5:21
  disclose the NPA in response to appropriate Foyer requests and
• 5:25
  compulsory process, but would provide Epstein with notice before making
• 5:29
  such disclosure. In part, this notice would ensure that no
• 5:33
  unlawful disclosure would be made mistakenly and subject the office
• 5:37
  to civil liability. Nothing in the NPA prohibited disclosing its
• 5:40
  terms to the victims. The confidentiality provision covered only the
• 5:44
  document itself. Petitioner's motion contains a number of other criticisms
• 5:50
  of the terms of the NPA, But despite my letters
• 5:53
  to them, giving them my telephone number and encouraging them
• 5:56
  to contact me, neither Jane do one nor Jane do
• 5:59
  two ever contacted me or Special Agent Kirkandall prior to
• 6:03
  the signing of the NPA to ask about the investigation
• 6:06
  or to encourage prosecution. Jane do two specifically told me
• 6:11
  that she did not want Epstein prosecuted. Other victims have
• 6:14
  told me there are fears of having their involvement with
• 6:16
  Epstein revealed and the negative impact it would have on
• 6:19
  their relationship with family members, boyfriends, and others. Once the
• 6:24
  NPA was signed on September twenty fourth, two thousand and seven,
• 6:27
  I asked the agents to meet with the victims to
• 6:29
  provide them with information regarding the terms of the agreement
• 6:33
  and the conclusion of the federal investigation. I also anticipated
• 6:37
  that they would be able to inform the victims of
• 6:39
  the date of the State Court change of plea, but
• 6:42
  that date had not yet been set by authorities at
• 6:45
  the time the first victims were notified. Special Agent Kirkandall
• 6:49
  and Richards met with three victims, including Jane do One,
• 6:52
  soon after the NPA was signed. It had been anticipated
• 6:56
  that they would meet with all the victims. However, almost
• 6:59
  immediately after the NPA was signed, Epstein, through his counsel,
• 7:03
  began to delay and inhibit the performance of his obligations
• 7:06
  under the NPA. First, he challenged the method for selecting
• 7:10
  the attorney representative provided by the NPA for victims who
• 7:13
  wished to use that attorney's services in seeking damages from Epstein.
• 7:18
  Among other efforts, Epstein also sought to challenge the list
• 7:21
  of victims identified during the course of the investigation, and
• 7:25
  as mentioned above, specifically attacked the inclusion of Jane do
• 7:29
  two as a victim because of her exculpatory statements. While
• 7:33
  petitioners here suggest that I was too lenient in my
• 7:35
  handling of the negotiation with Epstein's council, after the NPA
• 7:39
  was signed, Epstein's council raised challenges that I had been
• 7:43
  too aggressive. These and other attacks and efforts to avoid
• 7:47
  the NPA's terms led the FBI team, the Office, and
• 7:50
  me to conclude that prosecution and trial remained the possibility
• 7:54
  and we should prepare as such. This meant that the
• 7:58
  victim notifications had to cease because we no longer knew
• 8:01
  whether Epstein would perform under the NPA, and hence we
• 8:04
  did not know whether providing information about the NPA would
• 8:07
  be accurate. And two, we believe that Epstein, through his
• 8:10
  council would attempt to use victim notification concerning the NPA
• 8:14
  to suggest that the victims had been encouraged by the
• 8:18
  FBI or the Office to overstate their victimization or a
• 8:21
  monetary compensation. The FBI and the Office decided, therefore to
• 8:26
  do no further notifications regarding the NPA. At the time,
• 8:30
  our concerns were prescient, as shown by the deposition quoted
• 8:34
  in paragraphs twenty one above. This deposition occurred in February
• 8:38
  of two thousand and eight, during the period that Epstein
• 8:41
  was complaining to various levels of the Justice Department about
• 8:44
  the investigation and the NPA. Accordingly, the investigation continued while
• 8:50
  Epstein raised numerous erroneous allegations against me, the investigative team,
• 8:55
  other office personnel, and the victims seeking release from the
• 8:58
  Office and the Department, and a justice of the obligations
• 9:01
  he had undertaken in the NPA. While those appeals proceeded
• 9:06
  to the US Attorney the Child of Exploitation, an Obscenity
• 9:09
  Section in Washington, DC, the Assistant Attorney General, and the
• 9:13
  Deputy Attorney General, the investigative team and I continued interviewing
• 9:18
  and identifying victims, issuing subpoenas, and collecting evidence. The investigation
• 9:23
  continued up until the day that Epstein entered his state
• 9:27
  court guilty plea. One of the people who was reinterviewed
• 9:31
  after the NPA was signed was Jane do One, who
• 9:34
  was reinterviewed on January thirty first, two thousand and eight.
• 9:37
  I was present for that interview since I was aware
• 9:40
  that Epstein might proceed to trial. As with other victims
• 9:43
  who I interviewed, I asked Jane do One whether she
• 9:46
  would be willing to testify if there was a trial.
• 9:49
  At the time, Jane do One stated that she hoped
• 9:51
  Epstein would be prosecuted and that she was willing to testify.
• 9:56
  The FBI letters on January tenth, two thousand and eight.
• 9:58
  Informing Jane do one and Jane do two that the
• 10:01
  case was still under investigation and that it could be
• 10:04
  a lengthy process were accurate. Jane do one interview was
• 10:09
  part of that continued investigation, so no one was deceived.
• 10:12
  The process was not lengthier only because Epstein ultimately entered
• 10:17
  his state court guilty plea as contemplated by the NPA.
• 10:21
  In mid June of two thousand and eight, Attorney Edwards
• 10:24
  contacted You're affient to inform me that he represented Jane
• 10:27
  do one and another identified victim, not Jane Doe two.
• 10:31
  Attorney Edwards asked to meet to provide me with information
• 10:34
  regarding Epstein. On June nineteenth, two thousand and eight, Attorney
• 10:38
  Edwards sent me an email stating that he had information
• 10:41
  concerns that I would like to share and that he
• 10:43
  wanted to meet with me to discuss his plans. As
• 10:46
  noted in that email, he had one client at the
• 10:49
  time who had been referred in this suit as Jane
• 10:52
  do one, and he did not state that Jane do
• 10:54
  one wished to meet with me. I invited Attorney Edwards
• 10:57
  to send to me any information he wanted me to consider.
• 11:01
  At the time of my conversation with Attorney Edwards, I
• 11:04
  was still preparing to present charges against Epstein if Epstein
• 11:07
  succeeded in having the NPA set aside, or if he
• 11:10
  failed to perform the terms of the NPA. I did
• 11:13
  not disclose the existence of the NPA to Edwards because
• 11:16
  I did not know whether the NPA remained viable at
• 11:19
  the time, or whether Epstein would enter the State court
• 11:22
  guilty please that would trigger the NPA. I was aware
• 11:25
  that a final decision on Epstein's challenges to the NPA
• 11:29
  and the federal investigation was expected shortly, so I impressed
• 11:32
  upon Attorney Edwards that time was of the essence. Attorney
• 11:36
  Edwards sent nothing at the time, nor did he ever
• 11:39
  inform me that Jane Do one or Jane Do two
• 11:42
  wanted to confer with me before any resolution was reached.
• 11:46
  If anything had been provided by Edwards Jane Do one
• 11:49
  or Jane Do two, I would have reviewed it and
• 11:51
  shared it with my superiors. I also advised Attorney Edwards
• 11:56
  that he should consider contacting the State Attorney's office. I
• 11:59
  was informed, however, that no contact with that office was
• 12:02
  made at that time. Attorney Edwards also alluded to Jane
• 12:06
  Doe two, so I advised him that, to my knowledge,
• 12:09
  Jang Do two was still represented by Attorney James Eisenberg.
• 12:13
  He did not dispute or correct that, to my understanding.
• 12:16
  On Friday, June twenty seventh, at approximately four to fifteen pm,
• 12:21
  I received a copy of Epstein's pro post state plea
• 12:23
  agreement and learned that Epstein State Court change of plea
• 12:26
  was scheduled for eight thirty am Monday, June thirtieth, two
• 12:30
  thousand and eight. The Palm Beach Police Department and I
• 12:34
  attempted to notify the victims about the hearing in the
• 12:37
  short time available to us. I specifically called Attorney Edwards
• 12:41
  to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. I
• 12:44
  believe that it was during this conversation that Attorney Edwards
• 12:47
  notified me that he represented Jane Doe two. I urged
• 12:51
  the Attorney Edwards to have his clients to attend the hearing so
• 12:54
  they could address the court if they wished, and I
• 12:56
  stressed the importance of the hearing. I never told Attorney
• 12:59
  Edward words that the state charges involved other victims, and
• 13:03
  neither the State Court charging instrument nor the factual proffer
• 13:06
  limited the procurement of prostitution charge to a specific victim.
• 13:11
  In fact, as mentioned in Supra, I had encouraged Attorney
• 13:15
  Edwards to contact the State Attorney's office to discuss his
• 13:18
  client and the Epstein investigation with the state prosecutor. Attorney
• 13:22
  Edwards informed me that he could not attend the hearing,
• 13:24
  but that someone would be present at the hearing. The
• 13:28
  case agents and I attended the hearing as members of
• 13:30
  the general public and did not publicly announce our presidence
• 13:33
  since we were the only observers there. Neither Attorney Edwards
• 13:37
  nor any of his clients were present, and no one
• 13:40
  identified themselves to me, the FBI agents or the state
• 13:43
  court as being present on behalf of the petitioners. On
• 13:47
  July three, two thousand and eight, Attorney Edwards contacted me
• 13:51
  to discuss how the Epstein matter had been resolved and
• 13:54
  to raise concerns regarding that resolution. I shared the concerns
• 13:58
  that Attorney Edwards raised my superiors at the US Attorney's Office.
• 14:03
  I declare penalty of perjury pursuing to US Code twenty eight,
• 14:07
  Section seventeen forty six, that the foregoing is true and
• 14:10
  correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, Executed
• 14:15
  this second day of June twenty seventeen, and signed by
• 14:20
  Marie Villafauna. All of the information that goes with this
• 14:24
  episode can be found in the description box.