Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Epstein Files Unsealed: Epstein's Lawyers Blast Acosta's Office In A Letter To DOJ Brass (Part 2)

Transcript

Epstein Files Unsealed: Epstein's Lawyers Blast Acosta's Office In A Letter To DOJ Brass (Part 2) · 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 pick up
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: where we left off with a letter from Epstein's legal
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: team slamming the DOJ Number six, the SDFL did not
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: defer to the state Redacted's letter, the SDFL indicated a
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: willingness to defer to the state the length of incarceration.
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: The truth the SDFL neither deferred to the state nor
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: even discussed with the state the length of mister Epstein's incarceration,
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: and a letter to the Defense Criminal Division Chief redacted
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: rejected the sentence contemplated by the state's plea agreement, writing
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: that the federal interest will not be vindicated in the
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: absence of a two year term of state imprisonment see
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: Tab forty, August third, two thousand and seven email from redacted.
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: Of course, this position is contrary to section nine two
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: three to one D of the US Attorney's Manual, indicating
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: that the result of the state prosecution is presumed boomed
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: that have vindicated the federal interest. It is understandable, therefore,
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: that mister adacted might want to retreat from it now. Indeed,
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: the final deferred prosecution agreement restricts the state court judge
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: from exercising any of his rightful discretion, and to specifically
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: prohibit the judge from offering probation, community control, or any
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: other alternative in lieu of incarceration. Seven suggestion of additional
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: state plea Mister Redacted's letter the parties considered, as suggested
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: by the defense, a plea to state charges encompassing Epstein's conduct.
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: See tab Ie May nineteenth, two thousand and eight. Letter
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: from redacted, page two. The truth it was the government
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: and not the defense, that suggested a plea to state
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: charges to resolve the federal investigation. Rected proposed declining prosecution
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: in favor of the state. Although mister Epstein in the
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: State Attorney's office had already reached the plea agreement in
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: August of two thousand and seven, Mister redacted and aa
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: USA redacted warned that they intended to prosecute Epstein federally
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: unless his counsel ie, not the U. S. Attorney's Office,
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: sought more stringent conditions to the state's proposed plea agreement.
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: These stringent conditions included, among other things, the two year
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: prison term demanded by mister adacted and the charge requiring
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: him to register as a sex offender Number eight. All
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: identified victims will be put in the same position as
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: if Epstein had been tried mister Adacted's letter. The agreement
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: provides for a method of compensation for the victims such
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: that they would be placed in the same position as
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: if Epstein had been convicted of one of the enumerated
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: offenses set forth in Title eighteen US Code, Section twenty
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: two to fifty five. The truth Mister Adacted continues to
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: mischaracterize the highly irregular provision of the deferred prosecution Agreement.
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: The SDFL did not merely attempt to preserve the compensation
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: rights of those it identified as victims. It attempted to
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: create compensation rights for those it identified without imposing on
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: them the burden of providing or proving that they were
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: in fact victims. Under section twenty two to fifty five.
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: In the defertive prosecution Agreement, the SDFL required mister Epstein
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: to waive the right to contest liability under US Code eighteen,
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: section twenty two to fifty five as to a list
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: of individuals that the SDFL would not disclose to mister
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: Epstein until after he was sentenced and to pay for
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: an attorney to secure compensation under section twenty two to
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: fifty five for those undisclosed individuals, or if they decided
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: to assue mister Epstein. Section twenty two to fifty five
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: ordinarily provides individuals with a right to recover minimum guaranteed
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: damages of one hundred and fifty thousand without having to
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: prove actual damages only if one they were victims of
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: an enumerated federal offense, including offenses under US Code eighteen,
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: section twenty four to twenty two and twenty four to
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: twenty three to two, there were miners at the time
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: of the offense, and most importantly, three they were personally
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: injured as a result of the offense. The defense is
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: confirmed examples of women who testified that they were not
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: victims of mister Epstein and suffered no personal injury. These
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: women were nevertheless on the list of victims identified by
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: the government. In fact, when confronted with testimony of a
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: woman who denied both being a victim and incurring personal injury,
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: mister adacted actually acknowledged such testimony to justify inclusion of
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: that woman on the government's list. However, mister redacted then
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: challenged her own witnesses credibility. For this reason, it is
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: false to state that these identified individuals are in the
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: same position that they would have been had Epstein been
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: convicted at trial. Had there been a trial, mister Epstein
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: would have had the right to confront these individuals through
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: cross examination. Any individual that did not establish that she
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: was a minor victim of cons duct that satisfied each
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: element of an enumerated statute under section twenty two to
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: fifty five, or that she suffered personal injury would not
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: qualify for any treatment under section twenty two to fifty five. However,
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: under the deferred Prosecution Agreement, as an identified individual on
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: the government's list, the same individual would nevertheless be entitled
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: to engage an attorney paid for by mister Epstein, to
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: recover one hundred and fifty thousand dollars of damages from
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: mister Epstein under section twenty two to fifty five, without
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: ever alleging any injury. In fact, the defense was told
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: that the only question mister Epstein would be permitted to
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: ask before paying the girls is have you ever met
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: mister Epstein. Thus, the deferred prosecution Agreement places identified individuals
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: in a far better position than they would be if
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: mister Epstein were convicted at Trial nine. Assignment of right
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: to select legal representation mister Redacted's letter. Prior to any
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: issues arising concerning the implementation of the twenty to twenty
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: five provision, the SDFL unilaterally agreed to assign its responsibility
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: to select the attorney representative for the alleged victims to
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: an independent third party. The truth that such an assignment
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: was sdfl's unilateral decision is false. Before the SDFL decided
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: to assign selection of the attorney representative to an independent
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: third party, Ausa Redacted had already proposed an attorney representative.
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: She had proposed the local products liability lawyer Umberto Oqurees
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: and claimed that he had been recommended by a good
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: friend in the Appellate division. Misredacted's account was misleading, as
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: it omitted that this good friend was her living boyfriend
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: and that mister Okeriz was his former law school roommate.
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: When we discovered this independently, we objected. Only then did
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: the SDFL propose assigning the selection process to an independent
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: special master and agreed to amend the deferred prosecution agreement. Thus,
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: while it may be true that the SDFL assigned its
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: selection responsibly to avoid the appearance of favoritism, it did
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: not do it unilatterly, but rather only after Epstein uncovered
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: the office misleading disclosure and apparent conflict of interest. Ten
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: timetable for moving forward mister Adacted's letter on February twenty eighth,
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, I sent you an email setting
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: forth a timetable for moving forward in the event that
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: CEOs disagreed with your position, and that time is now
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: The truth mister adacted provides only part of the history
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: of the case. In order to justify his improper actions,
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: he had stated he would close the investigation if CEOs
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: told him to. However, CEOs, at our first contact said
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: that under no circumstances did they see that as their role.
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: They said they would only advise on an abuse of
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: discretion standard, making the outcome a foregone conclusion. Furthermore, in
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: response to the February twenty fifth email, which attempted to
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: establish a schedule to limit the entire review process, the
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: defense has repeatedly suggested that the misconduct was intertwined with
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: the investigation and would therefore seek higher review mister left
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: Quit's email mister Acosta directly on February twenty ninth, two
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: thousand and eight. Mister Redacted responded to mister left Quit's
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: email to mister Acosta, stating that mister Redacted was acting
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: out of frustration, but please be assured that it has not,
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: and never has been this office intent to interfere or
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: restrict the review process for either mister Epstein or CEOs.
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: I leave it to you and CEOs to figure out
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: how best to proceed and will await the results of
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: that process. As stated above, CEOs determined that it would
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: not review any of the Defense's objections, and as to
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: the remainder of those objections, its review would be limited,
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: contrary to mister Acosta's assurances, which left the need supplemented
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: by the defense subsequent request for a more thorough review
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: of critical issues by others at the Department of Justice.
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: Mister adacted reimposition of the all bit modestly extended timetable
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: was an obvious attempt in violation of his February twenty
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: ninth agreement to thwart the request made by the Defense
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: to the Deputy Attorney General to complete the review process
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: that mister Acosta had promised number eleven delay mister Adacted's letter,
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: in a section entitled delay, Mister adacted states that the
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: SDFL again agreed to accommodate Epstein's request to appear in
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: state court for plea and sentencing on January fourth, two
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: thousand and eight. The truth. Curiously, mister adacted fails to
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: mention correspondence from the us attorney, stating that delay of
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: that date would be inevitable as the defense's raise serious
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: questions about the propriety of the prosecution. Strikingly, in that
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: same section, mister adacted claims that the agreement did not
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: contemplate a state baggared plea deal and sentencing, despite quoting
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: three sentences earlier from the agreement staggered requirement that Epstein
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: plead and be sentenced by October twenty six and begin
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: serving that sentence no later than January fourth, two thousand
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: and eight. We are, like most attorneys, seeking department review
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: without access to the USAO prosecution summaries or other submissions
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: to the Department. Given the substantial issues that have been
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: raised in this and other submissions, we request that you
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: conduct a denovo review that goes beneath the face of
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: any conclusions being advocated by the USAO. Instead, we seek
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: a review that is based on the transcripts of witness
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: testimony themselves, so that the reviewer can make an independent
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: decision not adversely affected by conclusions that over and over
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: have proven witness by witness allegation by allegation to be
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: inaccurate and unwarranted and not an appropriate basis for the
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: exercise of federal prosecutorial authority. And this letter was not
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: signed by anybody, but it was sent by Kirk lan
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: Ellis and Jay Lefkowitz. So, as you can see, the
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: battle for Jeffrey Epstein's plead deal was so contentious that
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: it's not even funny. And I think that people have
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: only begun to peel back the layers of just how
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: nefarious the whole entire thing was. So we're going to
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: continue looking at these unsealed letters, especially when it comes
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: to this back and forth between the Department of Justice
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: and Epstein's legal team, because I think that gives us
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: quite a window into what was going on in real time,
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: and it also provides a lot of context for a
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: lot of the issues that we've talked about. But we
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: didn't have all the information, but now all those ducks
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: are getting put in a row, and I think it's
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: rather obvious that the fix has been in from the
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: very beginning. All of the information that goes with this
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box