Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 55-58) (7/5/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 55-58) (7/5/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
0:04
In this episode, we're getting right back to the OIG
0:07
report into Jeffrey Epstein's non prosecution agreement. Three Florida Rules
0:12
a professional conduct a FRPC four Dash four dot one
0:17
candor in dealing with others. FRPC four Dash four dot
0:21
one prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement
0:26
of material fact or law to a third person during
0:29
the course of representation of a client. A comment to
0:32
this rule explains that misrepresentation can also occur by partially
0:37
true but misleading statements or omissions that are equivalent or
0:41
affirmative false statements, and whether a particular statement should be
0:45
regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances
0:49
b FRPC four Dash eight dot four Conduct prejudicial to
0:55
the administration of justice. FRPC four Dash eight dot four
0:59
C states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct
1:02
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. FRPC four Dash eight
1:09
dot four D prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct
1:13
in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial
1:16
to the administration of justice. As previously noted, courts have
1:20
determined that FRPC four Dash eight dot four D is
1:24
not limited to conduct that occurs in a judicial proceeding,
1:27
but can also be applied to conduct in connection with
1:30
the practice of law. Frederick seven fifty six, South second District,
1:34
at eighty seven. See also Shankman forty first, South third
1:39
District at one seventy two, Chapter three Analysis one overview.
1:46
In addition to criticism of a Costa's decision to end
1:49
the federal investigation by means of the NPA, public and
1:52
media attention also focused on the government's treatment of the
1:56
victims in the CVRA litigation and in more recent MEATS reports.
2:01
Victims complained that they were not informed about the government's
2:03
intention to end its investigation of Epstein because the government
2:07
did not consult with the victims before the NPA was signed,
2:11
did not inform them of Epstein's state of plea hearing
2:14
and sentencing, thereby denying them the opportunity to attend, and
2:18
actively misled them through statements that the federal investigation was ongoing.
2:22
The district court overseeing the CVRA litigation concluded that the
2:26
government violated the Crime Victim's Rights Act and misled the
2:29
victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility,
2:34
and that it was a material omission for the government
2:36
to suggest that the victims that they have patients relative
2:40
to an investigation about which it had already bound itself,
2:44
not the prosecute. The government's conduct, which involved both the
2:47
FBI and USAO actions, led to allegations that the prosecutors
2:52
had purposefully failed to inform victims of the NPA to
2:56
prevent victims from complaining publicly or in state court. Pr
3:00
examined the government's course of conduct when interacting with the victims,
3:04
including the lack of consultation with the victims before the
3:07
NPA was signed, a costa's decision to defer to state authorities,
3:11
the decision to notify the victims of Epstein of his
3:14
state plea, and the decision to delay informing victims about
3:17
the NPA until after Epstein entered his plea on June thirtieth,
3:21
two thousand and eight. OPR considered whether letters sent to
3:25
victims by the FBI after the NPA was signed contained
3:29
false or misleading statements. OPR also evaluated representations from Villafauna
3:35
that she made to victims in January and February of
3:38
two thousand and eight and to an attorney for a
3:40
victim in June of two thousand and eight two the
3:44
subjects did not violate a clear and unambiguous standard by
3:48
entering into the NPA without consulting the victims. During the
3:52
CVRA litigation, the government acknowledged that the USAO did not
3:56
consult with victims about the government's intention to enter into
3:59
the NPA. In its February twenty first, twenty nineteen opinion,
4:03
the District Court concluded that once the government failed to
4:06
advise the victims about its intention to enter into the NPA,
4:10
a violation of the CVR occurred. OPR considered this finding
4:14
as part of its investigation into the usao's handling of
4:17
the Epstein case and examined whether, before the NPA was
4:21
signed on September twenty fourth, two thousand and seven, federal
4:24
prosecutors were obligated to consult with victims under the CVRA,
4:29
and if so, whether any of the subject attorneys, a
4:32
cost of Sloman menchal Lory, or a Villa Fauna intentionally
4:36
violated or recklessly disregarded that obligation as discussed below. OPR
4:42
concludes that none of the subject attorneys violated a clear
4:45
and unambiguous duty under the CVRA because the USAO resolved
4:50
that Epstein investigation without a federal criminal charge in September
4:54
two thousand and seven. When the NPA was signed, the
4:57
Department did not interpret CVR rights to atten unless and
5:01
until federal charges had been filed and the federal courts
5:04
had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the
5:08
CVRA before criminal charges were brought. Pursuant to opr's established
5:14
analytical framework, OPR does not find professional misconduct unless a
5:19
subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard. Accordingly,
5:25
OPR finds that the subject attorney's conduct did not rise
5:29
to the level of professional misconduct. OPR nevertheless concludes that
5:34
the lack of consultation was part of a series of
5:36
government interactions with the victims that ultimately let the public
5:40
and court condemnation of the government's treatment of the victims
5:44
reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and his
5:47
contradictory to the Department's mission to minimize the frustration and
5:50
confusion that victims of a crime endure in its wake.
5:54
A at the time no clear and unambiguous standard required the
5:58
USAO to notify victims regarding case related events until after
6:03
the filing of criminal charges. Although the rights enumerated by
6:06
the CVRA are clear on their face, the threshold issue
6:10
is whether an individual qualifies as a victim to whom
6:14
CVR rights attached, was neither clear nor on ambiguous at
6:19
the time the USAO entered into the NPA with Epstein
6:22
in September of two thousand and seven. At that time,
6:25
the Department interpreted the CVRA in a way that differed
6:29
markedly from the District Court's interpretation of the CVRA litigation.
6:34
The CVRA defines a crime victim as a person directly
6:38
and approximately harmed as a result of the commission of
6:41
a federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia.
6:44
On April first, two thousand and five, soon after the
6:47
CVRA was enacted, OLC concluded that the status of a
6:51
crime victim may be reasonably understood to commence upon the
6:54
filing of a criminal complaint, and that the status ends
6:57
if there is a subsequent decision not to indict or
7:00
prosecute the federal offense that directly caused the victim's harm.
7:05
Beginning with the two thousand and five OLC guidance, the
7:08
Department has consistently taken the position that the CVRA rights
7:12
do not apply until the initiation of criminal charges against
7:15
the defendant, whether by complaint, indictment, or information. OLC applied
7:20
its definition to all eight CVR rights in effect in
7:24
two thousand and five, but noted that the obligation created
7:27
by the eighth CVR right to treat victims with fairness
7:31
and respect is always expected of federal officials, and the
7:35
Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of nineteen ninety VRRA indicates
7:40
that this right applies throughout the criminal justice process, consistent
7:44
with the OLC interpretation. In May of two thousand and five,
7:47
the Department issued the two thousand and five Guidelines to
7:50
implement the CVR. The two thousand and five guidelines assigned
7:54
CVR related obligations to prosecutors only after the initiation of
7:59
federal charges. Specifically, in the two thousand and five Guidelines
8:02
stated that during the prosecution stage, the responsible officials should
8:06
make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims and consider victim's
8:11
views about prospective plea negotiations. The prosecution stage began when
8:16
charges were filed and continued through all post sentencing legal proceedings.
8:21
At the time the party signed the NPA in September
8:23
of two thousand and seven, few courts had addressed victim
8:26
standing under the CVRA. Notably, district courts in New York
8:30
and South Carolina had ruled that standing attached only upon
8:33
the filing of federal charges. Two cases relied upon the
8:36
Court in its February twenty nineteen opinion Dean and its
8:40
underlying District court opinion bp Products were decided after the
8:44
NPA was signed. The CVRA litigation and proposed federal legislation,
8:49
both pending as of the date of this report, showed
8:52
that the interpretation of victims standing under the CVRA continues
8:56
to be a matter of debate. In November twenty first,
8:59
though tenty nineteen letter to Attorney General William Barr, a
9:03
congressional representative, stated that she had recently introduced legislation specifically
9:08
to clarify the victims of federal crimes that have a
9:11
right to confer with the government and be informed about
9:14
key pre charging developments in a case, such as non
9:17
prosecution agreements. The CVR litigation arising from the Epstein case
9:23
shows the lack of clarity regarding when CVR rights apply.
9:27
The District court concluded that CVR rights applied pre charge,
9:31
but a sharply divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court
9:34
of Appeals came to a contrary conclusion, a decision that
9:38
has now been vacated. While the entire court here is
9:40
the case and bonc because the Supreme Court had not
9:44
addressed the issue of when CVR rights apply, the lower
9:47
courts had reached divergent conclusions, and the Department had concluded
9:51
that CVR rights did not apply pre charge. OPR concludes
9:56
that the subject's failure to consult with the victims before
9:59
signing the end did not constitute professional misconduct because at
10:03
the time, the CVRA did not clearly and unambiguously require
10:07
prosecutors to console with victims before the filing of federal
10:11
criminal charges. And while the Eleventh Circuit panel compared the
10:14
language of the CVRA to the language of the VRR,
10:18
noting that the VRR clearly extends victim notice rights into
10:22
the pre charge phase, and opining that the government may
10:25
well have violated the VRRA with regards to its investigation
10:30
of Epstein. As a predecessor to the CVR, the VRR
10:35
afforded victims various rights and services. However, it provided no
10:39
mechanism for a victim to assert such rights in federal
10:43
court or by administrative complaint. Like the CVRA, the rights
10:47
portion of the vr R established the victim's right to
10:51
be treated with fairness and respect and the right to
10:53
confer with an attorney for the government. However, the rights
10:57
portion of the vr R was repealed upon passage of
11:01
the CVRA and was not in effect at the time
11:04
of the Epstein investigation. The portion of directing federal law
11:09
enforcement agencies to provide certain victim services, such as counseling
11:13
and medical care referrals, remained in effect following passage of
11:17
the CVRA. Furthermore, two of the VRRA requirements, one requiring
11:23
a responsible official to inform a victim of any restitution
11:27
or other relief to which the victim may be entitled,
11:30
and another requiring that a responsible official shall provide a
11:33
victim the earliest possible notice of the status of the
11:36
investigation of the crime, to the extent its appropriate to
11:39
inform the victim, and to the extent that it will
11:42
not interfere with the investigation may have applied to the
11:45
Epstein investigation. However, thera did not create a clear and
11:50
on ambiguous obligation on the part of the subject attorneys,
11:54
as the two thousand and five guidelines assigned the duty
11:56
of enforcing the two requirements to the investigative agency rather
12:00
than to the prosecutors. Moreover, the VRRA did not require
12:04
notice to victims before the NPA was signed because at
12:07
that point the case remained under investigation and the victims
12:11
did not become entitled to pursue monetary damages under the
12:14
NPA until Epstein entered his guilty please in June two
12:18
thousand and eight. Once Epstein did so and the victims
12:21
identified by the USAO became entitled to pursue the Section
12:25
twenty two to fifty five remedy, the USAO furnished the
12:29
victims with appropriate notification. All right, we're going to wrap
12:32
up this episode here and in the next episode we're
12:35
going to pick up with b OPR did not find
12:38
evidence establishing that the lack of consultation was intended to
12:41
silence victims. All of the information that goes with this
12:45
episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone,
12:49
and welcome back to the Epstein chronicles. In this episode,
12:53
we're getting right back to the OIG report into Jeffrey
12:57
Epstein's NPA. B OPR did not find evidence establishing that
13:02
the lack of consultation was intended to silence victims. During
13:07
her OPR interviews, Villa Fauna recalled more than one discussion
13:11
in which she raised with her supervisors the issue of
13:14
consulting with the victims before the NPA was signed on
13:17
September twenty fourth, two thousand seven. Acosta, Sloman, Menchell, and Laurie, however,
13:23
had no recollection of the discussions about consulting victims before
13:26
the NPA was signed, and Menchell disputed Villa Fauna's assertions.
13:30
OPR found only one written reference before that date explicitly
13:34
raising the issue of consultation. Given the absence of contemporaneous records,
13:39
OPR was unable to conclusively determine whether the lack of
13:43
consultation stem from an affirmative decision made by one or
13:47
more of the subjects, or whether the subjects discussed consulting
13:50
the victims about the NPA before it was signed. Villa
13:54
Fauna's recollection suggests that Acosta, Mencheal, and Slowman may have
13:58
been concerned with maintaining the confidentiality of plea negotiations and
14:02
did not believe that the government was obligated to consult
14:04
with victims about such negotiations. OPR did not find evidence
14:09
showing the subjects intended to silence victims or to prevent
14:12
them from having input into the usao's intent to resolve
14:16
the federal investigation. Although the contemporaneous records provide some information
14:21
about victim notification decisions made after the NPA was signed
14:24
on September twenty fourth, two thousand and seven, records contain
14:28
little about the subject's views regarding consultation with victims before
14:32
the NPA was signed. In a September sixth, two thousand
14:35
and seven email primarily addressing other topics as the plea
14:38
negotiations were beginning in Earnest and almost three weeks before
14:42
the NPA was signed, Villafauna raised the topic of victim
14:45
consultation with Sloman, the agents and I have not reached
14:49
out to the victims to get their approval, which, as
14:51
CEO's chief Osterbond politely reminded me, is required under law
14:56
and the PbD chief wanted to know if any of
14:58
the victims had been consulted about the deal. Slowman forwarded
15:02
the email to Acosta with a note saying fyi. Villafana
15:06
recalled that after she sent the email, Slowman told her
15:09
by telephone, you can't do that now. Villa Fauna also
15:13
told OPR that shortly before the NPA was signed, Slowman
15:16
told her, we've been advised that the precharge resolutions do
15:19
not require victim notification. Villa Fauna also recalled a discussion
15:24
with Acosta, Menchel, and Slowman, during which he stated that
15:27
she would need to get victims input on the terms
15:30
being proposed to the defense, and she was told plea,
15:33
negotiations are confidential, you can't disclose them. None of the
15:37
other subjects recalled a specific discussion before the NPA was
15:40
signed about the USAO CVR obligations. Menchel told OPR he
15:45
believed the USAO was not required to consult with victims
15:48
prior to entering into the NPA, and we did not
15:51
have to seek approval from victims to resolve the case.
15:54
Slowman believed the USAO was obligated only to notify victims
15:58
about resolution of the case that we handled filed cases.
16:02
Slowman recalled that because the USAO envision to state court
16:06
resolution of the matter, he did not think that that
16:09
was a concern of ours at the time to consult
16:11
with the victims prior to entering into NPA. Lourie told
16:15
OPR that he did not recall any discussions about informing
16:18
the victims about the terms of the NPA or any
16:21
instructions to Villa Fauna that she did not discuss the
16:24
NPA with the victims. He stated that everything the USAO
16:28
did was or try to do, was to get the
16:31
best result as possible for the victims. Once you step
16:34
back and look at the whole forest, you will see
16:36
that if you look at each tree and say, well,
16:38
you didn't do this right for the victim, you didn't
16:40
tell the victim this, and that you're missing the big picture.
16:43
Costa told OPR that there was no requirement to notify
16:46
the victims because the NPA was not a plea. It's
16:49
a deferring in favor of state prosecution. Acosta said, whether
16:53
or not victims' views were elicited is something I think
16:56
was the focus of the trial team and not something
16:59
that I was folks tised on at least at this time.
17:02
Acosta could not recall any particular concern that factored into
17:05
the decision not to consult with the victims before entering
17:08
into the NPA, but he acknowledged the OPR clearly given
17:11
the way it's played out, it may have been much
17:13
better if we had consulted with the victims, as indicated
17:17
in the contemporaneous records reflect little about decisions made regarding
17:21
victim consultation prior to when the NPA was signed. Villafauna
17:25
raised the issue in writing to her supervisors in early September,
17:29
but there is no evidence showing whether her supervisors affirmatively
17:33
rejected Villa Fawna's contention that the USAO was obligated to
17:37
console with victims, ignored the suggestion, or failed to address
17:40
it for other reasons, possibly because of the extended uncertainty
17:44
as to whether Epstein wouldever agree to the government's plea proposal.
17:48
OPR notes that its subject interviews were conducted more than
17:53
a decade after the NPA was signed, and the passage
17:55
of time affected the recall of each individual OPR interviewed.
17:59
Although Villafana recalled discussions with their supervisors about notifying victims
18:05
her supervisors did not, and Menchell contended that Villa Fauna's
18:08
recollection is inaccurate. Assuming the discussions occurred, the timing is unclear.
18:13
Sloman was on vacation before the NPA was signed, so
18:16
a call with Villa Fauna about victim notification at that
18:19
point in time appears unlikely. Any discussion involving Menchell necessarily
18:24
occurred before August third, two thousand and seven, when it
18:27
was unclear whether the defense would agree to the government's offer.
18:31
Supervisors could well have decided that at such an early
18:34
stage there was little to discuss with victims. To the
18:37
extent that Villa Fauna's supervisors affirmatively made a decision not
18:41
to console victims. Villa Fauna's recollection suggests that the decision
18:45
arose from supervisor's concerns that the confidentiality of plea negotiations
18:50
and a belief that the government was not obligated to
18:52
consult with victims about a pre charge disposition. That belief
18:56
accurately reflected the department's position at the time about application
19:01
of the CVRA. Importantly, OPR did not find evidence establishing
19:06
that the lack of consultation was for the purpose of
19:08
silencing victims, and Villafauna told OPR that she did not
19:12
hear any supervisor express concerns about victims objecting to the
19:16
agreement if they learned of it. Because the subjects did
19:19
not violate any clear and unambiguous standard in the CVRA
19:23
by failing to consult with victims about the NPA, OPR
19:26
concludes that they did not engage in professional misconduct. However,
19:31
OPR includes the lack of consultation in its criticism of
19:35
a series of government interactions with the victims that ultimately
19:38
led to public and court condemnation of the government's treatment
19:42
of the victims. Although the government was not obligated to
19:45
consult with victims, a more straightforward and open approach would
19:48
have been consistent with the government's goal to treat victims
19:51
of crime with fairness and respect. This was particularly important
19:56
in a case in which victims felt excluded and mistreated
19:59
by the state. Furthermore, in this case, consulting with the
20:03
victims about a potential plea would have given the usao's
20:06
greater insight into the victim's willingness to support a prosecution
20:10
of Epstein. The consultation provision does not require a victim
20:14
approval of the prosecutor's plans, but allows victims the opportunity
20:18
to express their views and to be heard before a
20:21
final decision is made. The lack of consultation in this
20:24
case denied the victims that opportunity. Three letters sent to
20:29
victims by the FBI were not false statements, but risked
20:32
misleading victims about the status of the federal investigation. After
20:36
the NPA was signed on September twenty fourth, two thousand seven,
20:40
Villafauna and the FBI separately communicated with numerous victims and
20:44
victims attorneys, both in person and through letters. Apart from
20:48
three victims who were likely informed in October or November
20:51
two thousand seven about a resolution ending the federal investigation,
20:55
victims were not informed about the NPA, or even more generally,
20:59
that the us USAO had agreed to end its federal
21:02
criminal investigation of Epstein if he pled guilty to state
21:05
charges until after Epstein entered as guilty plea in June
21:08
of two thousand and eight. Despite the government's agreement on
21:11
September twenty fourth, two thousand and seven to end its
21:14
federal investigation upon Epstein's compliance with the terms of the NPA,
21:19
the FBI sent to victims in October two thousand seven,
21:22
January two thousand and eight, and May two thousand and
21:25
eight letters stating that the case was currently under investigation.
21:28
In its February twenty first, twenty nineteen opinion in the
21:32
CVR case, the District Court found those letters misled the
21:35
victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility,
21:39
and that it was material emission for the government to
21:41
suggest to the victims that they have patients relative to
21:44
an investigation about which it had already bound itself not
21:48
to prosecute in the discussions. Throughout this section, OPR examines
21:52
the government's course of conduct with the victims after the
21:55
NPA was signed. As set fourth in the previous subsection,
21:58
OPR did not find evidence supporting of finding that a
22:02
cost of Sloman or Villa Fauna acted with the intent
22:05
to silence victims. Nonetheless, after examining the full scope in
22:08
context of the government's interaction with victims, OPR concludes that
22:12
the government's inconsistent messages concerning the federal investigation led to
22:16
victims feeling confused and ill treated by the government. In
22:20
this section, OPR examines and discusses letters sent to the
22:23
victims by the FBI that were the subject of the
22:26
District Court's findings. OPR found no evidence that a cost
22:30
of Sloman or Villa Fauna was aware of the content
22:32
of the letters until the USAO received them from the
22:35
FBI for production for the CVRA litigation. OPR determined that
22:40
the January tenth, two thousand and eight and May thirtieth,
22:43
two thousand eight letters that the District Court determined to
22:46
be misleading, as well as the October twelfth, two thousand
22:49
letter OPR located during its investigation, were standard form letters
22:53
sent by the FBI Victims Specialist, as noted previously in
22:56
this report. After the NPA was signed, Villa Fauna and
23:00
the FBI agents continue to conduct their investigation in anticipation
23:04
that Epstein would breach the NPA. Absence such a breach, however,
23:08
Epstein would enter his state guilty plea and federal investigation
23:12
would end. Thus, the statement that the case was currently
23:15
under investigation was literally true, but the omission of important
23:18
contextual information about the existence of the NPA deprived the
23:22
victims of important information about the exact status of the investigation.
23:27
All right, we're going to wrap up right here and
23:29
in the next episode we're going to pick up with
23:31
a The USAO was not responsible for victim notification letters.
23:36
All of the information that goes with this episode can
23:39
be found in the description box. What's up everyone, and
23:42
welcome back to the Epstein chronicles. In this episode, we're
23:46
getting right back to the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's
23:50
npa A. The USAO is not responsible for victim notification
23:54
letters sent by the FBI in October two thousand and
23:57
seven January two thousand and eight in May two thousand
24:00
and eight, describing the status of the case as under investigation.
24:04
The two thousand and five Guidelines charged the FBI with
24:07
informing the victims of CVR rights and available services during
24:11
the investigative stage of a case. During the Epstein investigation,
24:16
the FBI case agents complied with the agency's notification obligation
24:20
by hand delivering pamphlets to victims following their interviews and
24:24
through computer generated letters sent to the victims by the
24:28
FBI's victim specialist. The FBI's notification process is independent of
24:33
the USAOs. The USAO has its own victim witness specialist
24:37
who assumes the responsibility for victim notification. After an indictment
24:42
or complaint moved the case into the prosecution stage, the
24:46
FBI Victim specialist us the VNS to prepare the October
24:50
two thousand and seven, January two thousand and eight, and
24:53
May two thousand eight letters, a system the FBI regularly
24:56
employs to comply with its obligations under the two thousand
24:59
five guidelines to inform the victims of their rights and
25:03
other services during the investigative stage. The stock language of
25:07
that letter, however, was generic and failed to communicate the
25:10
unique case specific status of the Epstein investigation at the time.
25:14
The FBI Victim specialist who sent the letters acted at
25:17
the case agent's direction and was not aware of the
25:20
existence of the NPA at the time she created the letters.
25:23
Neither the FBI case agent reviewed any of the letters
25:26
sent by the FBI Victim specialist. According to Villa Fauna,
25:30
the decision to issue the letters and the wording of
25:33
those letters were exclusively FBI decisions. Although the FBI case
25:37
agents informed Villa Fauna after the fact that the FBI
25:40
Victim specialist sent her standard form letter, Villa Fauna had
25:44
never reviewed an FBI generated victim notification letter and was
25:48
not aware of its contents. Villa Fauna told OPR she
25:51
was unaware of the content of the FBI letters until
25:55
they were collected for the CBRAA litigation sometime after July
25:59
two thousand b Because the federal investigation continued after the
26:04
NPA was signed, the FBI letters were accurate but risk
26:07
misleading victims regarding the status of federal investigation as described previously.
26:13
Given Epstein's appeal to the Department and continued delay entering
26:17
as guilty plea, Villa Fauna and other subjects came to
26:20
believe that Epstein did not intend to comply with the
26:23
NPA and that the USAO would ultimately file charges against Epstein.
26:28
By April two thousand and eight, Acosta predicted in an
26:31
email that charging Epstein was more and more likely. As
26:34
a result, Villa Fauna and the case agents continued their
26:37
efforts to prepare for a likely trial with additional investigative steps.
26:42
Among other actions, Villa Fauna, her supervisors, CEOs, and the
26:46
case agents engaged in the following investigative activities. The FBI
26:50
interviewed victims in October and November of two thousand and seven.
26:54
And between January and May of two thousand and eight,
26:56
and discovered at least six new victims. In January two
27:00
thousand and eight, CEOs assigned trial attorney to bring expertise
27:04
and a national perspective to the matter. In January and
27:08
February of two thousand and eight, Villa Fauna and the
27:10
CEOs trial attorney participated in victim interviews. Villa Fauna revised
27:16
the prosecution memorandum to focus on victims who were unknown
27:19
to Epstein's council. The USAO informed the Department's Civil Rights
27:24
Division pursuant to you Sam Section eight Dash three dot
27:27
one twenty of the usao's ongoing investigation of a child
27:31
exploitation matter involving Epstein and others. Villa Fauna secured pro
27:36
bono legal representation for victims whose depositions were being sought
27:41
by Epstein's attorneys in connection with the Florida criminal case.
27:46
Villa Fauna prepared a revised draft indictment. Villa Fauna sought
27:50
and obtained approval to provide immunity to a potential government
27:53
witness in exchange for that witness's testimony. Even after Epstein's
27:57
state plea hearing was set for June thirty one, two
28:00
thousand and eight. Villa Fauna took steps to facilitate the
28:03
filing of federal charges on July first, two thousand and eight.
28:07
In the event he did not plead guilty. Villafauna told
28:10
OPR that from her perspective, the assertion in the FBI
28:14
victim letter that the case was currently under investigation was
28:17
absolutely true. Similarly, the FBI case agent told OPR that
28:22
at the time the letters were sent, the case was
28:24
never closed and the investigation was continuing. The co case
28:28
agent told OPR that as of the time of his
28:31
OPR interview in twenty nineteen, the case was open. It
28:34
had never been shut down. OPR found no evidence that
28:38
the FBI's victim letters were drafted with the intent to
28:41
mislead the victims about the status of the federal investigation.
28:45
The ongoing investigation language generated by the VNS was generic
28:49
template language in use nationwide at the time, and identical
28:53
to the contained in standard form notification letters the FBI
28:56
generated and distributed from August two thousand and six through
29:00
the two thousand and seven signing of the NPA. Nevertheless,
29:04
the FBI letters omitted important information about the status of
29:07
the case because they failed to notify the victims that
29:10
a federal prosecution would go forward only if Epstein failed
29:14
to fulfill his obligations under an agreement he reached with
29:18
the USAO, victims receiving the FBI's letter would logically conclude
29:23
that the federal government was continuing to gather evidence to
29:26
support a federal prosecution CVRAA petitioner, Wilde stated during the
29:31
CVRA litigation that her understanding of this letter was that
29:34
her case was still being investigated and the FBI and
29:37
prosecutors were moving forward on the federal prosecution of Epstein
29:42
for his crimes against her. Furthermore, when the fact that
29:45
the USAO had agreed to end its federal investigation in
29:48
September of two thousand and seven eventually came to light,
29:51
the statement in the subsequent letters contributed to victims in
29:55
the public's conclusions that the government had purposefully kept the
29:59
victim in the dark. In some OPR concludes that the
30:03
statement in the FBI victim letters that the matter was
30:06
currently under investigation was not false because the USAO and
30:10
the FBI did continue to investigate and prepare for a
30:13
prosecution of Epstein. The letters, however, risked misleading the victims
30:18
and contributed to victim frustration and confusion because the letters
30:22
did not provide important information that would have advised victims
30:26
of the actual status of the investigation. Nonetheless, OPR found
30:31
no evidence that Villafauna or her supervisors participated in drafting
30:35
those letters or were aware of the content of the
30:38
FBI's letters until the department gathered them for production. In
30:42
the CVRAA litigation, the use of the FBI form letters
30:46
that gave incomplete information about the status of the investigation
30:50
demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies responsible
30:54
for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of
30:57
attention to and oversight regard ar in communication with victims.
31:01
Despite the fact that the case was no longer on
31:04
the typical path for resolving federal investigations, form letters continue
31:08
to be sent without any review by prosecutors or the
31:11
case agents to determine whether the information provided to the
31:15
victims was appropriate under the circumstances Part four. Acosta's decision
31:21
to defer to the state attorney's discretion whether to notify
31:24
victims about Epstein's State court plea hearing did not violate
31:28
clear or unambiguous standard. However, Acosta exercised poor judgment by
31:34
failing to ensure that victims identified in the federal investigation
31:37
were advised of the state plea hearing as set forth
31:41
in the factual discussion. Within a few weeks of the
31:43
NPA's signing, it became clear that the defense team disagreed
31:47
with and strongly objected to the government's plan to inform
31:50
the victims of their ability to recover monetary damages from
31:54
Epstein under US Code eighteen, Section twenty two fifty five
31:59
provision of these and about Epstein's state court plea hearing.
32:03
The USAO initially took the position that it was obligated
32:07
to and intended to inform victims of both the NPA,
32:10
including the section twenty two to fifty five provision, and
32:13
Epstein's change of plea hearing and sentencing, so that victims
32:17
who wanted to attend could do so. In November and
32:21
December of two thousand and seven, Epstein's attorneys challenged the
32:24
USAO position regarding victim notification. Ultimately, Acosta made two distinct
32:30
decisions concerning victim notifications, consistent with Acosta's concerns about intruding
32:35
into state action. Acosta elected to defer to state authorities
32:39
the decision whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing,
32:43
pursuant to the state's own victim rights requirements. Acosta also
32:47
determined that the USAO would notify victims about their eligibility
32:52
to obtain monetary damages from Epstein under section twenty two
32:55
to fifty five, a decision that was implemented by letters
32:59
sent to victims after Epstein entered a state plea. The decision,
33:03
which postponed notification of the NPA until after Epstein entered
33:08
his guilty please was based at least in part on
33:11
Villa Fauna and the case agent's strategic concerns relating to
33:14
preserving the victim's credibility, and is discussed further in section
33:18
five below. In this section, OPR analyzes the Costa's decision
33:22
to defer to the state the responsibility for notifying victims
33:26
of Epstein's plea hearing and sentencing. OPR concludes that neither
33:30
the CVRA nor the VRRA required the government to notify
33:35
victims of the state preceding, and therefore Acosta did not
33:38
violate any statutes or Department policy by deferring to the
33:42
discretion of the state attorney whether to notify victims of
33:45
Epstein State guilty please and sentencing. However, OPR also concludes
33:51
that a Costa exercised poor judgment because by failing to
33:55
ensure that the state intended to and would notify victims
33:58
of the federal investigation, he failed to treat victims forthrightly
34:02
and with the sensitivity expected by the Department through Council.
34:06
Acosta strongly disagreed with opr's conclusion and argued that OPR
34:10
unfairly applied a standard never before expected of any US attorney.
34:15
OPR addresses Acosta's criticisms in the discussion below. All Right,
34:20
we're going to wrap up this episode here and in
34:22
the next episode, we're going to pick up with a
34:24
Acosta's decision to defer to the state attorney's discretion. All
34:28
of the information that goes with this episode can be
34:31
found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome
34:35
back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going
34:38
to pick up where we left off with the OIG
34:40
report into Jeffrey Epstein's NPA Part A Acosta's decision to
34:46
defer to the state attorney's discretion whether to notify victims
34:49
about Epstein's state court plea hearing did not violate any
34:52
clear or unambiguous standard. In November two thousand and seven,
34:57
villa Fauna sought to avoid defense accusations and and his
35:00
conduct concerning her interactions with the victims by preparing a
35:03
written notice to the victims informing them of the resolution
35:07
of the federal case and their eligibility for monetary damages,
35:11
and inviting them to appear at the state plea hearing.
35:14
Villafauna and Sloman exchanged debits of the draft letter, and
35:18
at Sloman's instruction, she provided the draft to Defense attorney
35:21
left Kowitz, who in turn strongly objected to the government's
35:24
plan to notify victims of the state proceedings, which he
35:28
described as highly inappropriate and an intrusion into state affairs
35:32
when the identified individuals are not even victims of the
35:36
crime for which mister Epstein is being sentenced. Thereafter, at
35:39
a time when the USAO believed Epstein's plea to be eminent,
35:43
Villa Fauna drafted and Sloman signed the December sixth, two
35:47
thousand seven, letter to left Kowitz, rejecting the defense arguments
35:51
regarding notification and reiterating the usao's position that the victims
35:56
identified in the federal investigation be invited to appear at
35:59
the s state plea hearing. The letter took an expansive
36:02
view of the applicable statutes by contending that both the
36:06
CVRA and the VRRA required the USAO to notify the
36:10
victims of the state proceedings. These sections are not limited
36:15
to proceedings in federal district court. Our non prosecution agreement
36:19
resolves the federal government investigation by allowing mister Epstein to
36:23
plead to a state offense. The victims identified through the
36:26
federal investigation should be appropriately informed, and our non prosecution
36:31
agreement does not require the U S. Attorney's Office to
36:34
forego its legal obligations. The letter also asserted that the
36:40
obligated the USAO to provide the victims with information concerning
36:44
restitution to which they may be entitled and the earliest
36:48
possible notice of the status of the investigation, the filing
36:52
of charges, and the acceptance of a plea. Along with
36:55
the letter, Sloman forwarded a revised draft victim notification letter
36:59
to Leftkwitz for his comments. This draft victim notification letter
37:03
stated that the federal investigation had been completed, Epstein would
37:07
plead guilty in state court, the parties would recommend eighteen
37:11
months of imprisonment at sentencing, and Epstein would compensate victims
37:15
for monetary damage claims brought under US Code eighteen, Section
37:19
twenty two fifty five. The draft victim notification letter provided
37:23
specific information concerning the upcoming change of plea hearing and
37:27
invited the victims to attend or provide a written statement
37:31
to the State Attorney's office. When Lefkowitz asked Sloman to
37:35
delay sending victim notifications until after a discussion of their contents,
37:40
Sloman instructed Villa Fauna, who was preparing letters for transmittal
37:44
to thirty victims, to hold the letter. During his OPR interview,
37:48
Sloman recalled that he had wanted to push the letter out,
37:51
but he must have had a conversation with somebody about
37:54
whether the CVR applied, and based on that conversation, he
37:59
directed Villafuna to hold the letter. In his response letter
38:02
to Acosta, Lefkowitz contended that the government had misinterpreted both
38:07
the CVRA and the VRRA, because neither applied to the
38:10
public proceedings in this matter, which will be in state
38:14
court for the purpose of the entry of the plea
38:16
on state charges. Thereafter, in his December nineteenth, two thousand
38:21
and seven letter to Defense Council, mainly addressing other matters,
38:24
A Costa informed the Defense that the USAO would defer
38:28
to the State Attorney's discretion and the responsibility for notifying
38:32
victims about Epstein's state plea hearing. I understand that the
38:36
Defense objects to the victims being given notice of the
38:38
time and place of mister Epstein State court plea and
38:41
sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter
38:45
and statute. I would note that the United States provided
38:49
the draft letter to the Defense as a courtesy. In addition,
38:52
First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the
38:57
letters several leedits that had been requested by Defense Counsel.
39:00
I agree that Section thirty seven seventy one applies to
39:03
notice of proceedings and results of investigation of federal crimes
39:08
as opposed to the state crime. We intend to provide
39:11
victims with notice of the federal resolution as required by law.
39:15
We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney
39:17
regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of
39:20
the state proceedings, although we will provide him with the
39:23
information necessary to do so if he wishes. A Costa
39:27
told OPR that he would not have sent this letter
39:30
without running it by Sloman if not other individuals in
39:33
the office. A Costa explained that it was not for
39:36
me to direct the State attorney or for our office
39:39
to direct the State Attorney's office on its obligations with
39:43
respect to the state outcome. A Costa acknowledged that the
39:46
USAO initially had concerns about the state's handling of the case,
39:50
but he told OPR that doesn't mean that they will
39:53
not fulfill whatever obligation that they have. Let's not assume
39:56
that the State Attorney's Office is full of bad actors.
40:00
Sloman initially believed that the victims were going to be
40:03
notified at some level, especially because they had restitution rights
40:07
under Section twenty two fifty five, but his expectations changed
40:11
after there was no agreement made that we were going
40:15
to allow the state, since it was going to be
40:17
a state case, to decide how the victims were going
40:20
to be notified. Slowman told OPR that he had a
40:23
proceeding under the belief that we were going to notify
40:26
the victims even though this was not a federal case.
40:30
But once the NPA looked like it was going to
40:32
fall apart, the USAO had concerns that if we gave
40:35
them the victim notification letter and the deal fell apart,
40:38
then the victims would be instantly impeached by the provision
40:41
that you're entitled to monetary compensation. OPR could not determine
40:45
whether the state's Attorney's office notified any victims in advance
40:49
of the June thirtieth, two thousand and eight state plea hearing.
40:52
Krisher told OPR that the State Attorney's Office had a
40:55
robust and effective victim notification process and staff, but he
41:00
was not aware of whether or how it was used
41:03
in the Epstein case. Bellohovelik told OPR that she could
41:07
not recall whether victims were notified of the hearing, nor
41:11
whether the state law required notification for the particular charges
41:15
and victims that issue. Once the hearing was scheduled, Slowman
41:18
told Villa Fauna to contact PbD chief writer about notifying
41:22
the victims, and on June twenty eighth, two thousand and eight,
41:25
she reported back to Slowman that Writer is going to
41:28
notify victims about the plea. Villafana recalled that she sent
41:32
Writer a list of the girls identified as victims during
41:35
the federal investigation, and Writer said he would contact as
41:38
many as he could. The contemporaneous records do not show
41:42
how many or which victims, if any, Writer contacted, and
41:45
no victims were present in the court room. No victim
41:49
who provided information to o PR, either in person or
41:52
through her attorney, recalled receiving notice of the plea hearing
41:55
from a federal or a state official. At the time
41:59
that Epstein pled guilty in state court, no one in
42:02
the USAO knew exactly who, if anyone, Writer or the
42:06
State Attorney's office had notified about the preceding. Accordingly, Villa Fauna,
42:11
who was present in the court room for the hearing,
42:13
had no knowledge to whom Bellohovlik referred when she told
42:17
the court that the victims were in agreement with the
42:20
terms of this plea. OPR considered whether Acosta's decision to
42:24
defer to the State Attorney's office the decision to notify
42:27
the victims of the scheduled date of Epstein's plea hearing
42:30
constituted professional misconduct. OPR could not conclude that the CVRA
42:35
or VRRA provisions in question requiring notice of any public
42:40
preceding involving the crime against the victim or that the
42:43
victim is entitled to attend unambiguously required federal prosecutors to
42:48
notify victims of state court proceedings. Furthermore, as discussed previously,
42:53
OLC had issued guidance stating that the CVRA did not
42:57
apply in cases in which no federal charge had been filed. Moreover,
43:02
the section of the VRRA requiring notice of court proceedings
43:06
that the victim is entitled to attend referred specifically to
43:10
proceedings under US Code forty two, section ten six six
43:14
B and four, which at the time of the Epstein
43:17
case had become part of the CVRA US Code eighteen,
43:21
section thirty seven seventy one A and two. Because Acosta
43:25
had no clear or unambiguous duty to inform victims identified
43:29
in the federal investigation of the state plea hearing, OPR
43:32
concludes that his decision to defer to the state attorney
43:36
the decision to notify the victims of the state's plea
43:39
hearing and the responsibility for doing so, did not constitute
43:43
professional misconduct. B Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed
43:48
to ensure that victims identified in the federal investigation were
43:52
informed of the state plea hearing. Although Acosta or the
43:55
USAO was not required by law or policy to notify
43:59
victims of the state plea hearing, he also was not
44:01
prohibited by law or a policy from notifying the victims
44:06
that the federal investigation had been resolved through an agreement
44:09
that included pleas to state charges. As the contemporary records indicate,
44:13
Acosta consistently expressed hesitancy to interfere in the state's processes
44:18
or to dictate actions to the state attorney. His decision
44:22
that the USAO refrained from notifying victims about the state
44:26
plea hearing and deferred to state attorney's judgment regarding whether
44:30
and whom to notify was consistent with this view. However,
44:34
OPR found no evidence that Acosta's decision to defer victim
44:38
notification to the discretion of the state attorney was ever
44:41
actually communicated to any state authorities, or that Acosta recognized
44:45
that the state, absence significant coordination with federal authorities, was
44:49
unlikely to contact all of the victims identified in the
44:53
state and federal investigations, or that the state would inform
44:56
the victims that it did notify. The state plea hearing
45:00
was part of an agreement that resolved the federal investigation
45:03
into their own cases. Even taking into account Acosta's views
45:07
on principles of federalism and the reluctance to interfere in
45:10
state process, Acosta should have recognized the problems that would
45:14
likely stem from the passing the task of notifying victims
45:17
to the State Attorney's office and made appropriate efforts to
45:20
ensure that those problems were minimized. Appropriate notification would have
45:25
included advising victims identified in the federal investigation that the
45:29
USAO had declined to bring charges and that the matter
45:33
was being handled by the state attorney, and at a minimum,
45:36
provided the victims with Belohovlik's contact information. Acosta could have
45:41
interacted with the state attorney or instructed Villafauna or others
45:45
to do so to ensure the state intended to make
45:47
notifications in a way that reached the most possible victims.
45:51
And that it had information necessary to accomplish the task. Instead,
45:55
Acosta deferred the responsibility for victim notifications entire lead to
46:00
the state attorney's discretion, without providing that office with the
46:03
names of individuals the USAO believe we're victims, and apparently
46:07
without even informing the state prosecutors that he was deferring
46:11
to them to make the notifications if they chose to
46:14
do so. All right, we're going to wrap up this
46:16
episode right here, and in the next episode dealing with
46:19
the topic, we're going to pick up with Epstein was
46:21
required by the NPA to plead the only two state charges.
46:25
All of the information that goes with this episode can
46:28
be found in the description box.