Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 55-58) (8/1/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 55-58) (8/1/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

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