Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Late 2007 Documents Show Continued Effort to Shield Epstein From Federal Exposure (Part 4) (10/21/26)

Transcript

Late 2007 Documents Show Continued Effort to Shield Epstein From Federal Exposure (Part 4) (10/21/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to dive right
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: back into the letter sent by Epstein's lawyers to Alex Acosta. B.
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: Redacted prompted an unduly invasive investigation of Mr. Epstein. Redacted's
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: investigation of Mr. Epstein raises serious questions, despite the fact
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: that she was made aware of the inaccuracies in the
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: PBPD's probable cause affidavit She chose to include the affidavit
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: in the document file with the court knowing that the
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: public could access it. Then Redacted issued letters requesting documents
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: whose subject matter have no relation to the allegations against Mr. Epstein. Notably,
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: after we objected to these overly broad and intrusive requests,
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: Deputy Chief Redacted denied knowledge of Redacted's actions, and Redacted
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: commendably sought to significantly narrow the list of documents requested.
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: In a subsequent court filing, Redacted referred to our agreement
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: to remove these items from her demand list as evidence
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: of Mr. Epstein's non-cooperation. This was only the beginning. Redacted
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: also subpoenaed the agent of Roy Black without following the
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: guidelines provided in the U.S. Attorney's Manual that require prior
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: notification to Washington necessary to seek lawyers' records. We once
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: more requested Mr. Lurie to intervene. Despite these efforts, Redacted
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: followed up with a subpoena of for Mr. Epstein's confidential
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: medical records served directly on his chiropractor, with no notice
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: to Mr. Epstein. Redacted also made the unusual request of
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: asking the state attorney's office for some of the grand
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: jury material. She threatened to subpoena the state when she
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: was informed that it was in violation of Florida law
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: to release this information. After compiling this evidence, Redacted stated
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: that she would be initiating an investigation into a purported
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: violation of U.S. Code 18, Section 7, 1591, again without
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: required prior DOJ notification. Redacted then broadened the scope of
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: the investigation without any foundation for doing so by adding
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: charges of money laundering and violations of a money transmitting
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: business to the investigation. Mr. Epstein's counsel explained that there
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: could be no basis for these charges since Mr. Epstein
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: did not commit any prerequisite act for a money laundering
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: charge and has never even engaged in a money transmitting business. Ms.
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: Redacted responded that Mr. Epstein could be charged under these
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: statutes because he funded illegal activities. To suggest that Mr.
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: Epstein could violate these statutes simply by spending his legally
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: earned money on prostitutes is manifestly an erroneous interpretation of
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: the law. To our relief, after briefing Redacted at a
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: meeting regarding the spurious application of these statuses, we were
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: told to ignore the laundry list and that defense counsel
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: should focus on be turned to U.S. Code 18, Section 2422B.
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: Once Mr. Epstein's counsel submitted and presented the reasons why
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: a federal case would require stretching the relevant federal statutes
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: beyond recognition, and that federal involvement in this matter should
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: be precluded based on the federalism concerns, the petite policy,
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: and general principles of prosecutorial discretion, the parties commenced discussions
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: of a possible plea agreement. Around this time, we received
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: an email from Redacted suggesting that that she wanted to
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: discuss the possibility of a concurrent federal and state resolution.
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: We were immediately informed by your office that Redacted did
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: not have the authority to make any such plea proposals
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: and would not be involved in any further negotiations of
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: a plea. Despite this commitment, Redacted was the principal negotiator
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: of the agreement. At our meeting on September 7th, she
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: made reference to an allegation against Mr. Epstein involving a
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: 12-year-old individual. This allegation is without merit, and without foundation.
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: Though your last letter suggests that there waxed or was
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: no contact between individuals in your office and the press,
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: we were previously told by Redacted that the FBI was
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: receiving information specifically from Connolly, a Vanity Fair reporter, and
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: not vice versa. C. Redacted included unfair terms in the agreement.
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: Redacted took positions in negotiating this matter that stray from
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: both stated policy and established law. First, redacted insisted that
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: as part of the federal plea agreement, the state attorney's office,
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: without being shown new evidence, should be convinced to charge Mr.
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: Epstein with violations of law and recommend a sentence that
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: are significantly harsher than what the state deemed appropriate. In fact,
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: the state attorneys viewed this matter as a straightforward prostitution
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: case and believed that a term of probation was and
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: is the appropriate sentence. At redacted's insistence, however, Mr. Epstein
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: was forced to undertake the highly unusual and unprecedented action
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: of directing his defense team to contract the state prosecutors
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: themselves and ask for an upward departure in both his
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: indictment and sentence. There was no effort by the state
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: and federal prosecutors to coordinate the prosecutions, a practice which
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: is against the tenets of the Petit policy. In our view,
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: it's unprecedented to micromanage Each and every term of Mr.
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: Epstein's state plea, including the exact state charges to which Mr.
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: Epstein pled guilty, the time frame within Mr. Epstein must
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: enter the state plea and surrender to state officials and
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: the amount of time he must spend in county jail.
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: This is particularly true where the state attorney's office has
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: a different view of the case and there has been
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: no coordination with state authorities. In addition, redacted require that Mr.
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: Epstein's sentence include a registerable offense. As you know, requiring
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: sex offender registration will have significant impact both immediately and
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: forever after. This harsh term, which is said to be
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: suggested by the FBI, was added despite the fact that
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: the state believed that Mr. Epstein's conduct did not warrant
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: any such registration. As you know, state officials have special
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: expertise in deciding which offenders pose a threat to their community. Moreover,
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: this demand placed the state's prosecutors' credibility at issue and
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: diminishes the force of sexual registration when it's applied to
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: offenders who state prosecutors do not believe are dangerous or
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: require registration. Redacted's decision not to permit the state attorney
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: to determine a matter uniquely within its province was unwarranted.
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: What is more, when negotiating the settlement portion of the agreement,
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: Redacted insisted that a civil settlement provision be included in
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: the agreement, namely the inclusion of U.S. Code 18, Section 2255.
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: a negotiating term which is unprecedented in nature. While we
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: were reluctant and cautious about a plea agreement in which
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: a criminal defendant gives up certain rights to contest liability
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: for a civil settlement, redacted's ultimatums required that we acquiesce
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: to these unprecedented terms. For instance, when plea discussion stalled
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: as a result of redacted's demands, Mr. Epstein's counsel received
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: a letter from her stating, as it now appears you
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: will not settle. At this point, redacted expressed, her intention
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: to relaunch the government's previously set-aside money laundering investigation. She
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: also issued a rush of subpoenas and sent target letters
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: to Mr. Epstein's employees, adding new federal charges including obstruction
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: of justice. She then personally called Mr. Epstein's largest and
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: most valued business client without any basis to inform him
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: of the investigation. In an attempt to prevent further persecution
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: and intimidation, We proposed that Mr. Epstein establish a restitution
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: fund specifically for the settlement of the identified individual's civil
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: claims and that an impartial independent representative be appointed to
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: administer that fund. There was no dollar amount limit discussed
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: for the fund, but the idea was still rejected. We
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: then pointed out the state's charges to which Mr. Epstein
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: was to plead guilty carried with it a state restitution
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: provision that would allow victims to recover damages. Misredacted, however...
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: rejected this idea and suggested requiring a guardian ad litium
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: implying that the alleged victims in question were currently minors
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: and needed special representation. We later learned that the government's
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: list of individuals included a woman as old as 24,
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: which flies in the face of prior representations. It should
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: be noted that any person who is currently 24 years
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: or older could not have been a victim under U.S.
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: Code Section 2255, even if the conduct occurred in 2001.
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: At Redacted's insistence, the parties ultimately agreed to the appointment
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: of an attorney representative. But Redacted then took the position
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: that Mr. Epstein should pay for the representative's fees, which
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: effectively meant that Mr. Epstein must pay to sue himself.
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: Redacted also proposed wholly irrelevant charges, such as making obscene
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: phone calls and violations of child privacy laws. When Redacted
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: learned of these proposed charges, he asked Mr. Epstein's defense
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: team to ignore them, as they would embarrass the office. d.
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: Redacted continually and purposefully misinterpreted the critical terms of the agreement.
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: Since the execution of the agreement redacted as repeatedly and misconstrued,
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: the terms contained therein. As you know, several facets of
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: this matter have been highly contested by both parties. We
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: sometimes have obtained two competing views as to your willingness
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: to compromise on specific issues that we have raised with
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: your office. In particular, there are times when we receive
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: verbal agreement from you or your staff and sometimes from
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: misredacted herself, on a particular issue, only to subsequently receive
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: a contradictory interpretation from misredacted that negates our prior common understanding.
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: Her misrepresentations appear to be attempts to effectively change the
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: spirit and the meaning of the non-prosecution agreement. We offer
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: several examples of significant misrepresentations. First, despite the fact that
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: we received several commitments from your office that it would
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: monitor Mr. Epstein's state sentencing but not interfere with it
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: in any way, Ms. Redacted sought to do just that. Ms.
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: Redacted's decision to utilize a civil remedy statute in the
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: place of a restitution fund for the alleged victims eliminates
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: a notification requirement under the Justice for All Act in 2004,
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: a federal law that requires federal authorities to notify victims
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: as to any available restitution, not of any potential civil remedies,
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: to which they're entitled. Despite this fact, Ms. Redacted proposed
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: a victim's notification letter to be sent to the alleged
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: federal victims. Ms. Redacted has gone even further. alleging that
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: the victims may take written statements or testify against Mr.
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: Epstein at the sentencing. We find no basis in law
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: or the agreement that provides the identified individuals with either
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: a right to appear at Mr. Epstein's plea and sentence
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: or to submit a written statement to be filed by
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: the state attorney. Here, Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: and being sentenced for state offenses, not the federal offenses
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: under which the government has unilaterally recognized these identified individuals
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: as victims. The notion that individuals whose names are not
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: even known to the charging prosecutor in a state actually
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: should somehow be allowed to speak at a proceeding is unjustifiable. Furthermore,
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: only after obtaining the executed agreement did Ms. Redacted begin
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: insisting that the selected representative's duties go beyond settlement and
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: include litigating claims for individuals. In Ms. Redacted's victim's notification letter,
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: she states that Mr. Potthurst and Ms. Josephsburg, the selected
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: of attorneys' representatives, may present the identified individuals. This language
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: assumes the selected representatives will agree to serve in the
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: capacity envisioned by Ms. Redacted, which is patently incorrect. Yet
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: neglecting the spirit of principle of ethic with respects to conflict, Ms.
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: Redacted continues to improperly emphasize that the chosen attorney representative
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: should be able to litigate the claims of individuals. In
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: a similar fashion, Ms. Redacted has overstated the scope of Mr.
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: Epstein's waiver of of liability pursuant to the agreement. Misredacted
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: began asserting that Mr. Epstein has waived liability even when
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: claims with identified individuals are not settled just after the
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: execution of the agreement. Despite the fact that at this
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: time we obtained an agreement from you that Mr. Epstein's
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: waiver would not stretch past settlement, misredacted continues to espouse
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: this erroneous interpretation. F. Misredacted in the settlement process. We're
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: concerned that Ms. Redacted has repeatedly attempted to manipulate the
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: process under which Mr. Epstein has agreed to settle civil claims. First,
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: she inappropriately attempted to nominate Humbert Burt Ocariz for attorney
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: representative despite the fact that Mr. Ocariz has a long-standing
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: relationship with Ms. Redacted. Mr. Ocariz turns out to be
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: a very good personal friend and law school classmate of Ms.
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: Redacted's boyfriend, a fact she assiduously kept hidden from counsel.
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: We also learned that Ms. Redacted that she shared the
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: Ocariz the summary of the charges the government was considering
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: against Epstein, even after your office conceded that it was
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: inappropriate for its attorneys to select an attorney representative. Ms.
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: Redacted continued to lobby for Mr. Ocariz's appointment. On October 19, 2007,
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: retired Judge Edward B. Davis, who was appointed by the
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: parties to select the attorney representative, informed Mr. Epstein's counsel
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: that he received a telephone call from Mr. Okeriz, directly
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: requesting that Judge Davis appoint him as the attorney representative
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: in the matter. Furthermore, federal interference continues to plague the
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: integrity of the implementation of the agreement. We recently learned
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: that despite the fact that there was no communication between
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: state and federal authorities as to the investigation of Mr. Epstein,
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: the FBI visited the state attorney's office two weeks ago
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: to request Mr. Epstein be disqualified to participate in work release,
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: even though the agreement mandates that Mr. Epstein be treated
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: as any other inmate. 3. Conclusion In sum, we request
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: that you review the evidence supporting the prosecution of Mr. Epstein.
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: Such a review would serve to address similar concerns as
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: those raised in Brady v. Maryland, which mandate the disclosure
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: of evidence material to guilt or innocence, even after the
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: execution of an agreement, to enter a plea of guilty.
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: We believe that the prosecution team was informed by its witnesses,
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: including persons other than redacted and redacted, who were discussed
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: at length above, that Mr. Epstein's practice was to seek
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: women older than 18 rather than targeting those under 18.
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: We would expect, for instance, that redacted a key witness
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: whose interview with the FBI was recorded would have provided
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: such exonerating information as well as many others. We would
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: also expect the review to uncover clear evidence that demonstrates
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: that Mr. Epstein did not travel to Florida for the
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: purpose of having illegal underage sex, nor that he induced
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: underage women by using the internet or phones. Furthermore, we
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: ask you to consider whether there's reliable evidence, not just
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: that Mr. Epstein had sexual contact with witnesses who are
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: in fact underage, but whether the allegations are based on
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: trustworthy and corroborated evidence that Mr. Epstein knew that the
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: females in question were under 18 at the time of
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: sexual contact to Mr. Epstein traveled to his home in
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: Palm Beach for the purpose of having such sexual contact
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: to the extent the allegation charges a violation of of U.S.
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: Code 18 Section 2423B and C. And Mr. Epstein induced
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: such sexual contact by using an instrumentality of interstate commerce
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: to the extent the allegations charge a violation of 18 U.S.
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: Code Section 2422B. There's no evidence of internal solicitation, which
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: is the norm upon which federal jurisdiction is usually modeled
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: under the statutes. We believe that the information we provide
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: to you in this submission will be informative and spark
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: a motivation to gain more information with respect to the
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: investigation of the matter. Again, we're not seeking to unwind
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: the agreement. We're only seeking for you to exercise your
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: discretion in directing that an impartial and respected member of
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: your office test the evidence upon which the draft federal
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: indictment was based against, the best evidence, including the transcripts
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: of the tape-recorded pre-federal involvement interviews. Finally, I'd like to
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: reiterate our appreciation for the opportunity to have provided to
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: review some of our issues and concerns. I look forward
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: to speaking with you shortly. This was signed by Jay Lefkowitz.
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.