Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Late 2007 Documents Show Continued Effort to Shield Epstein From Federal Exposure (Part 5) (10/24/26)

Transcript

Late 2007 Documents Show Continued Effort to Shield Epstein From Federal Exposure (Part 5) (10/24/26) · 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
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: back in to the letter back and forth between the
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: DOJ and Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers. And this time we have
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: the response by Alex Acosta to Jay Lefkowitz. Dear Jay,
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: I'm writing not to respond to your asserted policy concerns
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: regarding Mr. Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, which will be addressed by
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: the U.S. Attorney. but the time has come for me
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: to respond to the ever-increasing attacks on my role in
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: the investigation and negotiations. It's an understatement to say that
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: I'm surprised by your allegation regarding my role because I
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: thought we had worked very well together in resolving this dispute.
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: I'm also surprised because I feel that I bent over
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: backwards to keep in mind the effect that the agreement
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: would have on Mr. Epstein and to make sure that
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: you and he understood the repercussions of the agreement. For example,
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: I brought to your attention the that one potential plea
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: could result in no gain time for your client, I
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: corrected one of your calculations of the sentencing guidelines that
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: would have resulted in Mr. Epstein spending far more time
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: in prison than you projected. I contacted the Bureau of
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: Prisons to see whether Mr. Epstein would be eligible for
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: a prison camp that you desired, and I told you
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: my suspicions about the source of the press leak and
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: suggested ways to avoid the press. Importantly, I continued to
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: work with you in a professional manner even after I
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: learned that you had been proceeding in bad faith for
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: several weeks, thinking that I had incorrectly concluded that solicitation
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: of minors to engage in prostitution was a registerable offense,
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: and that you would fool our office into letting Mr.
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: Epstein plead to a non-registerable offense, even now, when it's
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: clear that neither you nor your client ever intended to
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: abide by the terms of the agreement that he signed,
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: I have never alleged misconduct on your part. The first
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: allegation that you raise is that I assiduously hid from
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: you the fact that Bert Okeriz is a friend of
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: my boyfriend and that I have a long-standing relationship with Mr. Okeriz.
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: I informed you that I selected Mr. Okeriz because he
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: was a friend and classmate of two people whom I respected,
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: and I have never met or spoken with Mr. Okeriz
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: prior to contacting him about the case. All of those
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: facts are true. I still have never met Mr. Okeriz,
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: and at the time that he and I spoke about
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: the case... he did not know about my relationship with
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: his friend. You suggest that I should have explicitly informed
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: you that one of the referrals came from my boyfriend
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: rather than simply a friend. So this isn't from Acosta himself,
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: it's from Acosta's office, and it looks like it's from
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: Marie Villafana. The name is redacted at the top though,
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: so that's where we're at. Which is the term I used,
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: but it's not my nature to discuss my personal relationships
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: with opposing counsel. Your attacks on me and the victims
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: establish why I wanted to find someone whom I could
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: trust with safeguarding the victim's best interests in the face
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: of intense pressure from an unlimited number of highly skilled
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: and well-paid attorneys. Mr. Okerez was that person. One of
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: your letters suggests a business relationship between Mr. Okerez and
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: my boyfriend. This is patently untrue, and neither my boyfriend
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: or I would have received any financial benefit from Mr.
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: Okerez's appointments. Furthermore, after Mr. Okeriz learned more about Mr.
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: Epstein's actions as described below, he expressed a willingness to
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: handle the case pro bono, with no financial benefit, even
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: to himself. Furthermore, you were given several other options to
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: choose from, including the Potters firm, which was later selected
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: by Judge Davis. You rejected those other options. You also
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: allege that I improperly disclosed information about the case to Mr.
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: Okeriz and I provided Mr. Okeriz with a bare-bones summary
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: of the agreement terms related to his appointment to help
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: him decide whether the case was something he and his
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: firm would be willing to undertake. I did not provide Mr.
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: Okeriz with facts related to the investigation because they were
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: confidential and instead recommended that he Google Mr. Epstein's name
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: for background information. When Mr. Okeriz asked for additional information
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: to assist his firm in addressing conflicts issues, I forwarded
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: those questions to you. and you raised objections for the
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: first time. I did not share any further information about Mr.
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: Epstein or the case. Since Mr. Okeriz had been told
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: that you concurred in his selection out of professional courtesy,
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: I informed Mr. Okeriz of the office's decision to use
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: a special master to make the selection, and told him
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: the office had made contact with Judge Davis. We had
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: no further contact since then, and I have never had
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: contact with Judge Davis. I understand from you that Mr.
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: Okeriz contacted Judge Davis. You criticize the decision to do so,
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: yet you feel that you and your co-counsel were entitled
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: to contact Judge Davis to try to lobby him to
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: select someone to your liking, despite the fact that non-prosecution
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: agreement vested the office with the exclusive rights to select
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: the attorney representative. Another reason for my surprise about your
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: allegations regarding misconduct related to the Section 2255 litigation is
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: your earlier desire to have me perform the role of facilitator.
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: to convince the victims that the lawyer's representative was selected
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: by the office to represent their interests alone, and that
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: the out-of-court settlement of their claims was in their best interest.
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: You now state that doing the same things that you
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: had asked me to do earlier is improper meddling in
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: civil litigation. Much of your letter reiterates the challenges Detective
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: Redacted's investigation that have already been submitted to the office
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: on several occasions, and you suggest that I have kept
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: that information from those who reviewed the proposed indictment package.
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: Contrary to your suggestion, those submissions were attached to and
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: incorporated in the proposed indictment package, so your suggestion that
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: I tried to hide something from the reviewers is false.
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: I also take issue with the duplicity of stating that
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: we must accept as true those parts of the Ricari
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: report and witness statements that you like and we must
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: accept as false those parts that you don't like. You
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: and your co-counsel also impressed upon me from the beginning
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: that the need to undertake an independent investigation. It seems
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: inappropriate now to complain because our independent investigation uncovered facts
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: that are unfavorable to your client. You complain that I
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: forced your client and state attorney's office to proceed on
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: charges they don't believe in. Yet, you want our office
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: to inform the state attorney's office of facts that support
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: the additional charge, nor do you want any of the
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: victims of that charge to contact Ms. Belahovlik or the court. Ms.
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: Belahovlich's opinion may change if she knows the full scope
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: of your client's actions. You and I spent several weeks
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: trying to identify and put together a plea to federal
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: charges that your client was willing to accept. Yet your
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: letter now accuses me of manufacturing charges of obstruction of justice,
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: making obscene phone calls, and violating child privacy laws? When Mr.
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: Lurie told you that those charges would embarrass the office,
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: he meant that the office was unwilling to bend the facts.
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: to satisfy Mr. Epstein's desired prison sentence, a statement with
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: which I agree. I hope you understand how your accusations
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: that I imposed ultimatums and forced you and your client
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: to agree to unconscionable contract terms cannot square with the
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: true facts of the case. As explained in letters from
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: messengers redacted and redacted, the indictment was postponed for more
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: than five months to allow you and Mr. Epstein's other
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: attorneys to make presentations to the office to convince the
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: office not to prosecute. Those presentations were unsuccessful. As you
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: mention in your letter, a simple line USA handled the
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: primary negotiations for the office and conducted those negotiations with you, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Lewis,
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: and a host of other highly skilled and experienced practitioners.
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: As you put it, your group has a combined 250
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: years experience to my 14. The agreement itself was signed
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Sanchez, and Mr. Lefcourt, whose experience
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: speaks for itself. you and I spent hours negotiating the terms,
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: including when to use a versus, the, and other minutia.
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: When you and I could not reach an agreement, you
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: repeatedly went over my head, involving redacted, redacted, and redacted
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: in the negotiations at various times. In any and all
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: plea negotiations, the defendant understands that his options are to
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: plead or continue with the investigation and proceed to trial.
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: Those were the same options that were proposed to Mr. Epstein.
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: and they are not persecution or intimidation tactics, Mr. Epstein
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: chose to sign the agreement with the advice of a
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: multitude of extremely noteworthy counsel. You also make much of
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: the fact that the names of the victims were not
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: released to Mr. Epstein prior to signing the agreement. You
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: never asked for such a term. During an earlier meeting,
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: where Mr. Black was present, he raised the concern that
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: you now voice. Mr. Black and I did not have
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: a chance to discuss the issue, but I had already
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: conceived of a way to resolve that issue if it
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: were raised during negotiations. As I stated, it was not,
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: leading me to believe that it was not a matter
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: of concern to the defense. Since the signing of the
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: non-prosecution agreement, the agents and I have vetted the list
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: of victims more than once. In one instance, we decided
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: to remove a name because although the minor victim was
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: touched inappropriately by Mr. Epstein, we decided that the link
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: to payment was insufficient to call it prostitution. I've always
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: remained open to a challenge to the list. So your
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: suggestion that Mr. Epstein was forced to write a blank
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: check is simply unfounded. Your last set of allegations relates
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: to the investigation of the matter. For instance, your claim
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: that some of the victims were informed of their right
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: to collect damages prior to a thorough investigation of the
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: allegations against Mr. Epstein. This is also false. None of
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: the victims was informed of the right to sue under
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: Section 2025 prior to the investigation of the claims. Three
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: victims were notified shortly after the signing of the non-prosecution
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: agreement of the general terms of the agreement. You raised
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: objections to any victim's notification and no further notifications were done.
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: Throughout this process, you have seen that I have prepared
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: this case as though it would proceed to trial. Notifying
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: the witnesses of the possibility of damages claimed prior to
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: concluding the matter by plea or trial would only undermine
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: my case. If my reassurances are insufficient, the fact that
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: not a single victim is threatened to sue Mr. Epstein
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: should assure you of the integrity of the investigation. With
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: regard to your allegation of my filing the Palm Beach
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: Police Department's probable cause affidavit with the court knowing that
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: the public could access it, I do not know to
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: what you are referring. All documents related to the grand
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: jury investigation have been filed under seal and the Palm
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: Beach Police Department's probable cause affidavit has never been filed
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: with the court. If in fact you are referring to
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: the ex parte declaration of Joseph Rakari that was filed
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: in response to the motion to quash the grand jury subpoena,
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: it was filed both under seal and ex parte, so
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: no one should have access to it except the court
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: and myself. Those documents are still in the court file
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: only because you have violated one of the terms of
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: the agreement by failing to withdraw Epstein's pending motion to
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas. With respect
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: to Redacted, I contacted her attorney, who was paid for
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: by Mr. Epstein and was directed by counsel for Mr.
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: Epstein to demand immunity, and asked only whether he still
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: represented Redacted if he wanted me to send the victim
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: notification letter to him. He asked what the letter would say,
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: and I told him that the letter would be forthcoming
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: in about a week and that I could not provide
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: him with the terms. With respect to redacted status as
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: a victim, you again want us to accept as true
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: only facts that are beneficial to your client and to
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: reject as false anything detrimental to him. Redacted made a
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: number of statements that are contradicted by documentary evidence and
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: a review of her record. A recorded statement shows her
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: lack of credibility with respect to a number of statements.
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: Based upon all the evidence collected, redacted is classified as
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: a victim as defined by statute. Of course, that does
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: not mean that redacted considered herself a victim or that
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: she would seek damages for Mr. Epstein. I believe that
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: a number of identified victims will not seek damages, but
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: that does not negate their legal status as victims. I
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: hope that you now understand that your accusations against myself
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: and the agents are unfounded. In the future, I recommend
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: that you address your accusations to me so that I
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: can correct any misunderstanding before you make false allegations to
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: others in the department. I hope that we can move
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: forward with a professional resolution of this matter, whether that
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: be by your client's adherence to the contract that he
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: signed or by the virtue of a trial. Sincerely signed,
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: redacted by redacted. And again, I'm thinking that this is
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: Marie Villafana because that's who the argument was with. So
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: that's going to conclude this portion. In the next episode,
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: we're going to pick up with another response from by
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: Jay Lefkowitz, and once again, he's going over the head
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: of Ilifana and contacting Acosta directly. All the information that
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: goes with this episode can be found in the description box.