Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 59-62) (7/31/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 59-62) (7/31/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: In this episode, we're picking up where we left off
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's NPA. Epstein was
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: required by the NPA to plead the only two state charges,
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: and even assuming that each charge was premised on a
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: crime against a different victim and the solicitation charge involved
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: three separate victims, there were thus only at most four
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: victims of the charge state offenses. Without at least inquiring
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: into the state's intentions, Acosta had no way of determining
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: whether the state intended to notify more than those few victims. Moreover,
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: the federal investigation had resulted in the identification of several
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: victims who had not been identified by the PbD during
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: its investigation into Epstein's conduct. Absent information from the USAO,
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: the state would not have been in a position to
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: notify those additional victims of the state plea proceeding, even
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: if the state attorney had decided to include other victims
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: I identified during the state investigation. Furthermore, at the time
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: he made the decision, Acosta had already been advised by
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: Villa Fauna that bellehovlk in November of two thousand and seven,
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: had requested that the USAO notify victims, presumably those identified
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: during the federal investigation about the state plea hearing. Acosta
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: told OPR that it had been his understanding at the
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: time of Epstein's plea that the victims would be made
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: aware of the preceding and would have an opportunity to speak.
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: Acosta also told OPR that he expected the state would
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: have notified the victims that that was an all encompassing plea,
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: that the state court sentence would also mean that the
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: federal government was not preceding. There is no evidence, however,
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: that he verified this understanding with Slowman or Villa Fauna,
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: let alone the state attorney. OPR found no indication that
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: Acosta ever communicated or directed Slowman or Villa Fauna to
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: communicate his decision to the state attorney or to provide
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: the State Attorney's office with a complete victims identified during
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: the federal investigation. OPR located a draft letter to the
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: State Attorney's office that Villa Fauna prepared and forwarded to
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: Acosta in December of two thousand and seven, which did
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: provide such information, but OPR found no evidence that the
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: letter was ever sent, and it was not among materials
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: publicly released from the State Attorney's office. OPR also found
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: evidence that both Sloman and Villafana interacted with the State
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office in the months leading up to the June thirtieth,
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: two thousand and eight plea hearing, but there's no indication
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: that they discussed victim notification issues with that office, and
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: Villa fauna last minute request to PbD chief writer to
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: notify victims indicates that the USAO had not coordinated with
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: the State Attorney's office. Bellohovlk told OPR that no one
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: from the USAO provided her with a list of victims
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: or coordinated any notification of victims to appear at the hearing.
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: Krisher and Bellohovlk were thus evidently unaware that Acosta had
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: decided to leave it to them to decide whether to
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: notify victims about the state proceeding in the absence of
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: some discussion of which or how many victims the state
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: intended to notify, what the state intended to tell them
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: about Epstein's plea, and whether the state intended to let
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: victims speak at the plea hearing. A Costa had no
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: way to ensure that his assumption about victim notification was accurate.
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: In other words, Acosta failed to plan for how all
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: of the identified victims of Epstein's crimes, both federal and state,
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: would be aware of what was happening in the state
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: court and have an opportunity to speak up at the
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: state court hearing. OPR did find evidence that a Costa
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: acted for the purpose of excluding victims from the plea hearing,
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: and a cost of assumption that the state would handle
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: victim notification appropriately was not unsupported. State prosecutors are subject
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: to victim notification requirements under the Florida Constitution, and the
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: state prosecution offices have victim witness personnel, resources and processes
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: to help accomplish notification. However, Acosta was aware, through the
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: prosecution memoranda, the draft indictment, and email communications from Villa
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: Fauna that usao's investigation had expanded beyond those victims identified
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: in the original PbD investigation, because the state indictment and
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: information appeared to pertain to far fewer than the total
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: victims identified in either the state or the federal investigation,
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: and no one at the USAO was certain which victims
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: were covered by the state charges. It should have been
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: apparent to Acosta that without advanced planning between the USAO
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: and the State Attorney's Office, there was a substantial risk
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: that most of the victims identified in the federal investigation
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: would not receive notice of the hearing. Notification to the
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: broadcast possible number of identified victims could only have been
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: successful if there was appropriate communication between the USAO and
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: the state prosecutors, communication that had previously been lacking regarding
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: other significant issues relating to Epstein. Afauna and Sloman hastily
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: arranged effort to enlist in the notification process. PbD chief writer,
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: who likely played little role in complying with the state's
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: victim notification obligations in a typical case, was not adequate
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: substitute for careful planning and coordination with the State Attorney's office.
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: Even if the State Attorney's office had notified all of
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: the identified victims of the upcoming plea hearing, there was
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: no guarantee that such notification would have included information that
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: the state plea was resolving not just the state's investigation
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: of Epstein, but the federal investigation as well. The State
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: Attorney was not obligated by state statutes to inform the
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: victims of the status of the federal investigation, and there
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: was little reason to assume Krisher or one of his
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: staff would voluntarily do so, thereby putting the State Attorney's
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: office in the position of fielding victim questions and concerns
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: about the outcome. Furthermore, as both the USAO and Defense
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: had differing views as to who could lawfully participate in
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: the state plea hearing, there is no indication that Acosta, Sloman,
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: or Villa Fauna took steps to confirm that if victims appeared,
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: they could actually participate in the state court proceeding when
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: they were not victims of the charge crimes. Through council,
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: Acosta asserted to OPR that because Villa Fauna and Sloman
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: both told OPR that they believe that state officials would
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: notify the victims, OPR identified no reason why Secretary Acosta
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: should have distrusted his team on these points. Acosta's council
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: further argued that Acosta should have been able to rely
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: on his staff to accomplish the victim notification task, and
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: thus had no responsibility to personally confirm that chief writer
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: would notify the victims of the hearing. Acosta is correct that,
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: under usual circumstances, USAO management played no role in the
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: victim notification process. However, in this case, the issue of
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: victim notification had been elevated from a role of administrative
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: task to a major area of dispute with the defense.
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: Acosta personally involved in them by resolving the notification dispute
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: with defense counsel in his December nineteenth, two thousand seven letter,
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: Villa Fauna provided Acosta with a draft letter to state
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: officials that would have opened a dialogue concerning the notification
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: of all the victims identified in the federal investigation. OPR
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: found no evidence, however, that Acosta sent the letter or
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: any similar communication to the State Attorney's office, or that
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: he provided Villa Fauna and Sloman with instructions concerning victim
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: notification other than those contained in his December nineteenth, two
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: thousand seven letter. Having inserted himself into the notification process,
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: Acosta had a responsibility to ensure that the expectation that
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: the victims would be notified could be accomplished through the
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: state process. Many victims only learned of Epstein's state court
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: please when they later received a letter from the USAO
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: informing them that those pleas had resolved. The federal investigation,
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: and some victims only learned of the state pleas and
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: sentencing from the news media In the end, although Villa
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: Fauna and Sloman hastily attempted to ensure victim notification through
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: chief Writer, their effort was too little and too late
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: to ensure that victims had the opportunity to attend the
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: plea hearing or were given sufficient information about its significance
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: to their own cases. Although Acosta may have conferred with
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: others about the decision to defer the responsibility for notifying
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: victims to the state attorney, Acosta was responsible for choosing
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: this course of action. OPR concludes that under the unique circumstances,
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: its criticisms are warranted because Acosta personally decided to change
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: the process initiated by his staff, and although he expected
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: that the federal victims would be notified, he did not
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: take the necessary steps to ensure that they would be.
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: Acosta could have authorized disclosure of the plea hearing to
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: victims even if he did not believe the CVRA required it,
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: to ensure that the victims identified in the federal investigation
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: were aware of the state court proceeding because the state
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: please ended the federal investigation into Epstein's conduct. Ensuring that
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: the victims were notified of the state plea hearing would
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: have been consistent with the department's over arching commitment to
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: treat victims with fairness, dignity, and sensitivity. A Costa's failure
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: to prioritize notification and coordinate communication about resolution of the
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: case to ensure Epstein's victims were given an opportunity to
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: attend the plea hearing and to possibly speak about the
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: impact of Epstein's crimes presented a glaring contrast with the
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: Costa's responsiveness to the demands of Epstein's attorneys, which included
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: the unusual courtesy of allowing them to preview and respond
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: to the usao's draft victim notifications. This contrast added to
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: the victim's perception that they had been treated unfairly, of
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: view shared by the public. Nothing in the documentary records
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: suggests that Acosta thought through the issue of determining which
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: victims would be notified by the state, or that he
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: took any steps to ensure that all of the known
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: federal victims received information about the state plea hearing instead,
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: as with his decision to resolve the federal investigation through
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: a state based resolution, Acosta exercised poor judgment when he
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: made critical decisions affecting the federal investigation and the victims,
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: but he also failed to consider the full consequences of
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: those decisions or what was needed to implement them. Acosta's
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: failure to consider these issues before simply leaving the responsibility
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: for making notifications entirely to the State attorney's discretion reflected
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: poorly on the USAO and the department as a whole.
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: It let victims in the dark about an important proceeding
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: that resolved federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: had communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: the misimpression that the department intentionally sought to silence the
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: victims by keeping them uninformed about the NPA and resulting
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: state proceeding. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were afforded
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: an opportunity to attend to hearing that was related to
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: their own cases, and thus failed to ensure that victims
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: were treated with forthrightness and dignity. All right, we're going
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: to wrap up right here, and in the next episode
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: we're going to pick up with five. Villa Fauna did
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: not commit professional misconduct and her oral communication to victims.
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: going to pick up where we left off with the
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's NPA. Five Villa Fauna did
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: not commit professional misconduct in her oral communication to victims
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: and victims attorneys, in which she described the case as
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: under investigation, but did not disclose the existence of the
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: NPA to some victims. From September twenty fourth, two thousand
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: and seven, when the NPA was signed, until after Epstein's
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: June thirtieth, two thousand and eight, state court plea, the
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: case agents, acting under Villa Fauna's direction, directly informed only
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: three victims that the government had signed an NPA and
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: that if Epstein complied with its terms, the federal investigation
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: would be closed. During this time period, Villa Fauna and
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: the case agents interacted with several victims and their attorneys,
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: and Villa Fauna contacted victim's attorney brought the Edwards to
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: encourage him to attend the state court plea hearing, but
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: she did not inform victims or Edwards of the NPA
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: or the resolution of the federal investigation as described in
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: Part one of this chapter. After the NPA was signed,
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: the FBI case agent and co case agent began notifying
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: victims about the NPA. After speaking to three victims, however,
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: the FBI case agent became concerned that informing the victims
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: about the NPA and the monetary damages provision would create
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: potential impeachment material for the victims and the agent should
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: Epstein breach the NPA and the case proceed to indictment
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: and trial, As the case agent told OPR, I would
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: have to testify. And I told every one of those
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: girls that they could sue mister Epstein for money. And
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: I was not comfortable with that and I didn't think
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: it was right. The case agent and Villa Fauna consulted
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: with the usao's Professional Responsibility Officer about the matter, and
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: thereafter stopped notifying the victims about the NPA and their
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: ability to pursue monetary damages. According to its terms. Villa
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: Fauna advised Sloman by email of her concerns regarding the
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: potential impeachment evidence, telling them one thing I'm concerned about
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: is that if we file charges now, cross examination will
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: consist of the government told you that if mister Epstein
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: is convicted, you're entitled to a large amount of damage right.
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: Explaining the decision in her later CVR declaration, Villa Fanna
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: said that Epstein's attorneys complained that the victims were receiving
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: an incentive to overstate their involvement with mister Epstein in
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: order to increase their damage's claim. She concluded that informing
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: additional victims would compromise the witness's credibility at trial if
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: Epstein reneged on the agreement. Acosta was aware of these concerns,
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: as he referred to them in an August two thousand
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: and eight email. We also believed that contacting the victims
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: would compromise them as potential witnesses. Epstein argued very forcefully
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: that they were doing this for the money, and we
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: did not want to discuss liability with them, which was
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: a key part of the agreement. The case agents interviewed
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: victims in October and November of two thousand and seven,
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: but did not inform them about the NPA. On January
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: thirty first, two thousand and eight, FBI agents, Villa Fauna
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: and the CEOs trial attorney interviewed three victims, including Courtney Wilde,
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: and they interviewed at least one more victim the next day.
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: Wilde and two others had been contacted by the FBI
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: in the fall of two thousand and seven and may
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: have been informed about the resolution of the federal investigation.
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: Villa Fauna told OPR that during the January thirty first,
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: two thousand and eight interviews, she did not specifically tell
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: the victims that there was a signed non prosecute agreement
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: that had these terms. She stated that she would not
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: use terminology such as NPA because most people don't understand
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: what that means. Instead, with respect to the three victims, who,
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: according to Villa Fauna, had been informed by the FBI
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: about the resolution, she stated that an agreement had been
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: reached where Epstein was going to be entering a guilty plea,
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: but it doesn't look like he intends to actually perform,
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: and now it looks like this may have to be
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: charged and it may have to go to trial. Villa
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: Fauna recalled telling some victims that Epstein was supposed to
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: enter a plea in state court that would end the investigation,
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: but she did not recall distinguishing between the federal investigation
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: versus the state investigation. Villa Fauna told OPR she explained
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: the case was under investigation, She and the agents were
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: preparing again to file charges and they hope that charges
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: would be brought. An email from Villa Fanna to Sloman
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: and Acosta during this time period reflects that she had
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: such discussions with at least one victim interviewed on this
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: The second girl was very upset about the eighteen month
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: deal that she had read about in the paper. She
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: would rather not get any money and have Epstein spend
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: a significant time in jail. Villa Fauna, however, did not
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: recall telling all of the victims interviewed at this time
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: of the state plea. Rather, she likely only told those
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: who knew about the resolution from the FBI. In her
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: own twenty fifteen CVR case declaration, Wild stated that she
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: was not told about any NPA or any potential resolution
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: of the federal investigation. I was cooperating in if I
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: had been told about an NPA, I would have objected,
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: while further stated in her declaration that, based on what
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: the FBI had been telling me, I thought they were
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: still investigating my case. Neither the CEO's trial attorney nor
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: FBI case agent recalled the specifics of the victim interviews.
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: The FBI reports memorializing each interview primarily addressed the facts
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: elicited from the victim regarding Epstein's abuse, and did not
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: describe any discussion about the status of the case or
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: the victim's view about the prosecution of Epstein. When asked
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: whether she was concerned that failing to tell victims about
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: the NPA when she was interviewing them would mislead victims.
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: As previously noted, Villa Fauna told OPR that she believed
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: she and the agents were conducting an investigation because they
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: continued interviewing witnesses and doing all these things the file
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: charges and prepare for a federal trial. As Villa Fauna stated,
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: so to me, saying to a victim the case is
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: now back under investigation is perfectly accurate. Villa Fauna also
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: was aware that some victims were represented by counsel in
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: connection with civil lawsuits against Epstein, but did not proactively
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: inform the victim's attorneys about the NPA. In a twenty
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: seventeen Avid David filed in the CVRA litigation, victims attorneys,
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: Bradley Edward alleged that during telephone calls with Villa Fauna,
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: he was asked very specific questions about what stage the
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: investigation was in, and Villa Fauna replied that she couldnot
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: answer his questions because the matter was an ongoing, active investigation.
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: Edwards stated that Villa Fauna gave him the impression that
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: the federal investigation was ongoing, very expansive, and continuously growing,
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: both in the number of identified victims and complexity. Edwards
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: also stated a fairer characterization of each call was that
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: I provided information and asked questions, and Villa Fauna listened
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: and expressed that she was unable to say much or
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: answer the questions I was asking. In her written response
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: to OPR, Villa Fauna stated that she listened more than
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: she spoke during her interactions with Edwards, and that due
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: to the uncertainty of the situation and the possibility of
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: a trial, she did not feel comfortable sharing any information
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: about the case. Villa Fauna also told OPR that because
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: of all these concerns and instructions that I had been
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: given by Alex and Jeff not to disclose things further
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: and not to have any involvement in victim notification, she
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: felt prohibited from providing additional information to Edwards. Slowman told
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: OPR that although neither the NPA terms nor the CVRA
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: prevented the USAO from exercising its discretion to notify the victims,
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: it was of concern that this was going to break
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: down and result in US prosecuting Epstein, and that the
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: victims were going to be witnesses and if we provided
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: a victim notification indicating hey, you're going to get one
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: hundred and fifty GS, that's going to be instant impeachment
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: For the defense, a Costa told OPR that because Epstein
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: did not plead guilty in October two thousand and seven,
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: as the USAO expected, it was a very open question
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: whether the case would go to trial, and Acosta thought
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: that where there is no legal requirement, there has to
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: be discretion to judge how much you can tell the
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: victims and when Epstein's attorney's conduct during the time period
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: between the signing of the NPA and Epstein's entry of
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: a state guilty please illustrated the risk that Acosta, Slowman,
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: and Villafauna, all identified as Epstein's council deposed victims related
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: to the state court criminal charges and civil cases against Epstein.
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: Council suggested that the victims were motivated to testify against
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: Epstein by the government's promise of financial gain. For example,
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: during a February twentieth, two thousand and eight, state deposition
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: of a victim, defense Council asked her whether the federal
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: prosecutor or FBI agents told her that she was entitled
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: to receive money from Epstein. In her twenty seventeen declaration
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: in the CVRA litigation, Villa Fauna identified that line of
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: questioning as a motivating factor in the government's decision to
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: stop notifying the victims about the potential for US Code eighteen,
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: section twenty two to fifty five recovery. On June twenty seventh,
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, the friday before Epstein's Monday June thirtieth,
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, state court guilty plea hearing, Villa
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: Fauna contacted Edwards to inform them about the upcoming hearing.
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: Villa Fauna told OPR she was not given authorization to
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: contact any victim attorney other than Edwards about the scheduled
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: state plea hearing. In his twenty seventeen aff David prepared
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: for the CVR litigation, Edwards stated that Villa Fauna gave
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: the impression that she was caught off guard herself, that
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: Epstein was pleading guilty, or that this event was happening
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: at all. Edwards said in a twenty sixteen court filing
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: that Villa Fauna told him only that Epstein was pleading
• 21:24
  Speaker 1: guilty to state's solicitation of prostitution charges involving other victims,
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: not mister Edward's clients nor any of the federally identified victims.
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: Villa Fauna stated in her twenty seventeen declaration that she
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: never told Attorney Edwards that the state charges involved other victims,
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: and neither the state court charging instrument nor the factual
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: proffer limited the procurement of prostitution charge to a specific victim.
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: Villa Fauna told OPR she strongly encouraged Edwards and his
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: clients to attend the plea hearing, but could not be
• 21:57
  Speaker 1: more explicit because she was not authorized by the other
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: office to disclose the terms of the NPA. In his
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: twenty seventeen affid, David Edwards acknowledged that Villa Fauna did
• 22:08
  Speaker 1: express that this hearing was important, but never told me
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: why she felt that way. Edwards claimed that Villa Fawna's
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: failure to inform him that the guilty please in state
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: court would bring an end to the possibility of a
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement resulted in his
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: clients not attending the hearing. Edwards himself was out of
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: town and not able to attend the hearing. In his affid,
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: David Edwards asserted, there was no possible way that I
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: could have believed that this state plea could affect the
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: federal investigation or the rights of my clients in that
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: federal investigation. In while the Eleventh Circuit panel stated that
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: the government seemingly deferred to Epstein's attorneys and their requests
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: not to notify the victims about the NPA, and that
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: in sending the January and May two thousand and eight
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: FBI letters to the government, efforts seemed to have graduated
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: from passive non disclosure to or at least close to
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: active misrepresentation. Although both the appellate Court and the District
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: Court focused on the FBI's letters, for which OPR concludes
• 23:09
  Speaker 1: that neither Villa, Fauna, Sloman nor Acosta was responsible, OPR
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: considered the court's analysis in evaluating weather similar representations Villafana
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: made to the victims whom she interviewed on January thirty
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: first and February first of two thousand and eight and
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: to Edwards were misleading. Therefore, OPR considered whether Villafanna's statements
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: that the matter was under investigation and her failure to
• 23:33
  Speaker 1: inform all of the victims whom she interviewed or Edwards
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: about the NPA violated FRPC four dash four dot one
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: A and four dash eight dot four C or four
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: dash eight dot four D. All right, folks, we're gonna
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: wrap up right there, and in the next episode we're
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: gonna pick up with FRPC four dash four dot one
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: A prohibits an attorney from knowingly making a false statement.
• 23:57
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're going
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: to pick up where we left off with the OIG
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: report into Jeffrey Epstein's NPA. FRPC four dash four dot
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: one A prohibits an attorney from knowingly making a false
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: statement of material fact or law to a third person
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: during the representation of a client. The FRPC defines knowingly
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: as denoting actual knowledge of the fact in question, and
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: states that such knowledge may be inferred from circumstances. The
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: comments to FRPC four Dash four dot one states that
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: or emissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements.
• 24:44
  Speaker 1: The comment references FRPC four Dash eight dot four for
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: dishonest conduct that does not amount to a false statement.
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: Like FRPC four Dash four dot one A, rule four
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: dash eight dot four C requires evidence that the attorney
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: knew this statement in question was false. Under FRPC four
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: Dash eight dot four C, the intent requirement can be
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: satisfied merely by showing that the conduct was deliberate or knowing,
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: and the motive underlying the lawyer's conduct is not determined. Instead,
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: the issue is whether he or she purposely acted. In Feinberg,
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: the court concluded that the prosecutor violated FRPC four Dash
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: four dot one and four Dash eight dot four c
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: ND by deliberately making untruthful statements to a defense attorney,
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: despite evidence that the prosecutor intended to help the defendant
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: by making the statements. In this case, Villa Fauna was
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: fully aware of the signed NPA when she interviewed the
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: victims on January thirty first and February first, two thousand
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: and eight, and when she spoke to Edwards on the telephone,
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: but she did not inform them specifically of the signed NPA.
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: The question is whether this omission amounted to a knowing
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: false statement or misrepresentation. One difficulty in determining what Ville
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: Lafauna actually said during conversations that participants were asked to
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: recall many years later. With respect to three of the
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: victims whom she interviewed in January and February of two
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: thousand and eight, Villa Fauna contended that she discussed the
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: agreement with them, even if she did not specifically refer
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: to it as an NPA or discuss all of its terms,
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: and as previously noted, there is some contemporaneous evidence supporting
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: her assertion. Bila Fauna's mention of the agreement, even if
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: not described in specific terms, would have been sufficient to
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: apprize those victims of the status of the federal investigation. Nevertheless,
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: Villa Fauna did not recall discussing the NPA specifically or
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: in general terms with other victims interviewed at the time,
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: nor did she do so with Edwards or any other
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: victim's attorney. OPR therefore considered whether the omission of information
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: about the existence of the NPA during these interactions rose
• 26:55
  Speaker 1: to the level of professional misconduct in violation of FRPC
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: four dash flow dot one or four dash eight dot four.
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: OPR evaluated Villa Fauna's conduct in light of the comments
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: to FRPC four Dash four dot one. A lawyer is
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: required to be truthful when dealing with others on a
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform
• 27:16
  Speaker 1: an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: if the lawyer in corporates or affirm statements another person
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur
• 27:28
  Speaker 1: by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: the equivalent of affirmative false statements. The victims in their
• 27:35
  Speaker 1: attorneys were certainly not opposing parties to the USAO, but
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: the comment indicates that the rule recognizes that omissions made
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: during discussions with third parties, even of relevant facts, are
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: not always treated as false statements. Here, the evidence does
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: not show that Villa Fauna knowingly made an affirmative false
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: statement to the victims or Edwards, or that her omissions
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: were the equivalent of affirmative false statements about material facts. First,
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: Villa Fauna told OPR that she believed the investigation was ongoing,
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: and her statement to that effect truthful and as discussed
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: earlier in this chapter. The evidence shows that Villa Fauna
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: and the agents did continue to investigate the case until
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: Epstein entered his guilty plea in state court in June
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: of two thousand and eight. Villafanna's email correspondence with her
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: supervisors reflects her strong advocacy during that timeframe to declare
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: Epstein in breach and to charge them. The evidence similarly
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: does not show that Villa Fauna knowingly made affirmative false
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: statements to Edwards when she informed him of the state
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: court plea, although she declined to provide additional information in
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: response to his questions. Second, in reaching its conclusion, OPR
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: consider the full context in which Villa Fauna interacted with
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: the victims and Edwards. Prosecutors routinely make decisions about what
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: information will be disclosed to witnesses, including victims, for a
• 28:55
  Speaker 1: variety of strategic reasons. In many cases, prosecutors must make
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: decisions about providing information to witnesses, and they often cannot
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: fully reveal either the facts or the status of an investigation,
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: even to the victims. The two thousand and five Guidelines
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: advise that in consulting with a victim, prosecutors may be
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: limited to their disclosures. Because victims are not clients, may
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: become adverse to the government and may disclose whatever they
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: have learned from consulting with prosecutors. Such consultations may be
• 29:25
  Speaker 1: limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only nonsensitive
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: data and public information. Villa Fauna's concern about generating potential
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: impeachment evidence by informing victims of their potential to recover
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: monetary damages from Epstein was not unreasonable. Indeed, the case
• 29:42
  Speaker 1: agents initially raised the impeachment issue, and after considering the problem,
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: Villa Fauna agreed with the agent's concerns. Villa Fauna raised
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: those concerns with the USAOs Professional Responsibility Officer in October
• 29:54
  Speaker 1: of two thousand and seven after the agents brought the
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: issue to her attention, and she ultimately raised the issue
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: with Sloman and Acosta as well, neither of whom advised
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: her that those concerns were improper or unsound. OPR also
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: considered that although Villa Fauna had sought to notify the
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: victims in writing of the NPA soon after it was signed,
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: her supervisor, the US Attorney, had decided otherwise. When authorized
• 30:19
  Speaker 1: to inform Edwards of the schedule change of plea hearing,
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: she did so, although she did not inform Edwards that
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: the plea was part of a global resolution that would
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: end the federal investigation. The evidence does not show that
• 30:32
  Speaker 1: Villa Fauna acted for the purpose of deceiving Edwards or
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: preventing him from attending the hearing. Had she sought to
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: exclude him from the state proceedings, she could have elected
• 30:41
  Speaker 1: not to inform Edwards at all, or she could have
• 30:43
  Speaker 1: discouraged them from attending the state proceedings. Rather, as Edwards confirmed,
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: Villa Fauna told him the hearing was important, and Villa
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: Fanna sought to strike a difficult balance of securing Edwards
• 30:55
  Speaker 1: and his client's attendants at the state court plea while
• 30:58
  Speaker 1: obeying her managements to that informing victims of the resolution
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: of the federal investigation should not be done until completion
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: of the state please. Therefore, after carefully considering all of
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: the circumstances, OPR concludes that the evidence does not establish
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: that Villa Fauna violated her obligations under FRPC four H
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: four dot one or four dot four C or D. Nonetheless,
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: as discussed below, Vila Fauna's interactions with victims and victims
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: attorneys without informing them of the NPA and the potential
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: conclusion of the federal investigation contributed to the likelihood that
• 31:36
  Speaker 1: the victims would feel that the government was intentionally concealing
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: information from them, and was part of a series of
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: interactions with victims that led to condemnation of the government's
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: treatment of victims. Six. The government failed to treat victims
• 31:50
  Speaker 1: forthrightly and with sensitivity when it failed to timely provide
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: victims with important information about the resolution of federal investigations.
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: Although OPR does not conclude that any of the subjects
• 32:02
  Speaker 1: committed professional misconduct, either by failing to consult with the
• 32:05
  Speaker 1: victims before the NPA was signed or in interactions afterwards.
• 32:09
  Speaker 1: Opr's findings are not an endorsement of the government's course
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: of action. The government's interactions with victims confused and frustrated
• 32:16
  Speaker 1: many of the victims, particularly the two CVRA petitioners and
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: the two victims who had unsuccessfully attempted to join the
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: CVR litigation. As a result, the victims and the public's
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: perception of the matter is that the prosecutors worked with
• 32:31
  Speaker 1: Epstein's attorneys to disenfranchise and silence the victims. It's unfortunate
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: and appears fundamentally unfair to the victims that Acosta and Sloman,
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: after Menschlin Lori departed, took the unusual step of deciding
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: to vet the USAO victim notification letters with the defense
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: after the NPA was signed, but failed to go beyond
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: the requirements of the CVR or the two thousand and
• 32:53
  Speaker 1: five guidelines to consult with the victims before the NPA
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: was signed. This result is contrary to the department's intent
• 33:00
  Speaker 1: as set forth in the two thousand and five guidelines
• 33:03
  Speaker 1: that Department employees worked to minimize the frustration and confusion
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: of the victims of crime that they endure in its wake.
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: When considering the entirety of the government's interactions with victims,
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: OPR concludes that victims were not treated with the fourth
• 33:17
  Speaker 1: rightness and sensitivity expected by the Department. Wild's criticisms of
• 33:21
  Speaker 1: the government conduct were based on interactions that are similar
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: to and generally representative of the government's interactions with other
• 33:29
  Speaker 1: EPSTEIN victims, and that demonstrate an overall lack of sensitivity
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: by the victims by the government. Wild experienced a series
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: of confusing and inconsistent communications in her interactions with Villa
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: Fauna and the case agents. While received Villa Fauna's letter
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: in June two thousand and seven stating inaccurately that she
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: was a federal victim entitled to CVR rights, She was
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: interviewed by the FBI in August two thousand and seven,
• 33:55
  Speaker 1: but was not told of a potential outcome of a
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: state plea. Shortly after this September twenty fourth, two thousand
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: and seven signing of the NPA, the FBI contacted her
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: to informer of the resolution of the Federal case. Nonetheless,
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: on January tenth, two thousand and eight, the FBI sent
• 34:12
  Speaker 1: her a victims rights letter indicating that the case was
• 34:15
  Speaker 1: under investigation and that some of her CVR rights may
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: not apply until after the defendant was charged. On January
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: thirty first, two thousand and eight, Villa Fauna reinterviewed Wild
• 34:27
  Speaker 1: along with CEOs attorney and FBI agents, and told Wild
• 34:31
  Speaker 1: that the case was under investigation, but did not specifically
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: mention the NPA, although she may have mentioned the possible resolution.
• 34:38
  Speaker 1: In mid June two thousand and eight, when Edwards contacted
• 34:41
  Speaker 1: Villa Fauna on Wild's behalf, Villa Fauna informed them that
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: the case was under investigation, but did not mention the NPA.
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: Just before Epstein's June thirtieth, two thousand and eight, state
• 34:51
  Speaker 1: court plea, Villa Fauna informed Edwards about the state plea,
• 34:54
  Speaker 1: but did not mention the NPA or the fact that
• 34:57
  Speaker 1: the state please would resolve the federal investigation. Edwards then
• 35:01
  Speaker 1: filed the CVR A petition and learned about the NPA
• 35:05
  Speaker 1: signed months earlier, and that the federal investigation of Epstein
• 35:08
  Speaker 1: had concluded with Epstein's state guilty Please. Wild only received
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: access to the NPA when a judge permitted it in
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: August two thousand and eight, pursuing too a protective order.
• 35:18
  Speaker 1: After considering this series of interactions, it's not surprising that
• 35:22
  Speaker 1: Wild came away from that experience feeling confused and believing
• 35:26
  Speaker 1: that she had been misled. All right, we're going to
• 35:28
  Speaker 1: wrap up right here, and then the next episode we're
• 35:30
  Speaker 1: going to pick up with OPR did not find evidence
• 35:33
  Speaker 1: supporting a conclusion that Villa Fauna Acosta, Sloman menchel Or
• 35:37
  Speaker 1: Laurie opted not to consult with victims. All of the
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 35:43
  Speaker 1: the description box. What's up everyone, and welcome back to
• 35:46
  Speaker 1: the Epstein chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: we left off with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's NPA.
• 35:55
  Speaker 1: OPR recognizes that the Epstein investigation occurred soon after the
• 35:59
  Speaker 1: passage of this In the years since, the department's prosecutors
• 36:03
  Speaker 1: and personnel have become more familiar with its provisions. OPR
• 36:07
  Speaker 1: encourages the department as a whole to take the issues
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: discussed above into account when providing training and direction to
• 36:14
  Speaker 1: its employees regarding victims' rights. To ensure that in the future,
• 36:18
  Speaker 1: Department attorney's actions promote victim inclusion whenever possible. For example,
• 36:23
  Speaker 1: although the division of responsibility between the FBI and the
• 36:27
  Speaker 1: USAO for communicating with victims works efficiently and appropriately in
• 36:32
  Speaker 1: the average case, the USAO failed to consider that in
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: a case involving a pre charge disposition, the victims were
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: receiving in consistent and confusing communications from the separate entities.
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: In certain cases, such as the Epstein case, prosecutors may
• 36:47
  Speaker 1: need to provide more oversight when multiple department components are
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: communicating with victims to avoid providing confusing and contradictory messages conclusion.
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: In November twenty eighteen, the Miami Herald published an extensive
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: investigative report about the state and federal criminal investigations initiated
• 37:08
  Speaker 1: more than twelve years earlier in allegations that Jeffrey Epstein,
• 37:11
  Speaker 1: a wealthy financier with residences in Florida, New York, and
• 37:15
  Speaker 1: other United States and foreign locations, had coerced girls into
• 37:19
  Speaker 1: engaging in sexual activity with them at his Palm Beach,
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: Florida state. The Miami Herald reported that in two thousand
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: and seven, the U S Attorney for the Southern District
• 37:28
  Speaker 1: of Florida, R Alexander Acosta entered into an extraordinary deal
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: with Epstein that permitted Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and
• 37:36
  Speaker 1: a potentially lengthy prison sentence by pleading guilty in state
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: court to two prostitution charges, immunized from prosecution Epstein's co
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: conspirators and concealed from Epstein's victims the terms of the NPA.
• 37:50
  Speaker 1: Following the Miami Herald's report and after receiving a congressional
• 37:54
  Speaker 1: request to investigate, OPR initiated an investigation into the allegations
• 37:59
  Speaker 1: that prosecutors in the USAO and properly resolved the federal
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: investigation into the criminal conduct of Jeffrey Epstein by negotiating
• 38:08
  Speaker 1: and executing the NPA. OPR subsequently included in its investigation
• 38:13
  Speaker 1: allegations stemming from judicial criticism of the government's conduct relating
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: to federal prosecutors and law enforcement agents interactions with Epstein's victims.
• 38:23
  Speaker 1: In July of two thousand and eight, a victim later
• 38:25
  Speaker 1: joined by a second victim, filed in federal court in
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: the Southern District of Florida an emergency petition for enforcement
• 38:32
  Speaker 1: of her rights under the CVRA. In February twenty nineteen,
• 38:36
  Speaker 1: the District Court found that the government violated the CVRA
• 38:40
  Speaker 1: by failing to advise victims about its intention to enter
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: into the NPA. The court also found that letters the
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: government sent to victims after the NPA was signed describing
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: the investigation as ongoing were misleading. During the course of
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands of
• 38:59
  Speaker 1: recis records from the USAO, the FBI, and other Department
• 39:03
  Speaker 1: of Justice components. The records included emails, letters, memoranda, and
• 39:08
  Speaker 1: investigative materials. OPR also collected and reviewed materials relating to
• 39:13
  Speaker 1: the state investigation and prosecution of Epstein, including sealed pleadings,
• 39:19
  Speaker 1: grand jury transcripts, grand jury audio recordings, and examined extensive
• 39:24
  Speaker 1: publicly available information, including depositions, pleadings, orders, and other court records,
• 39:29
  Speaker 1: and reviewed media reports and interviews, articles, podcasts, and books
• 39:33
  Speaker 1: relating to the Epstein case. OPR conducted more than sixty
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: interviews of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors,
• 39:42
  Speaker 1: and FBI administrative personnel, current and former USAO staff and attorneys,
• 39:47
  Speaker 1: current and former Department attorneys, and senior managers, and the
• 39:51
  Speaker 1: former State Attorney and Assistant State Attorney in charge of
• 39:55
  Speaker 1: the state investigation of Epstein. OPR also interviewed or received
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: written information from several victims and attorneys representing victims concerning
• 40:05
  Speaker 1: victims contacts with the USAO and federal law enforcement. OPR
• 40:09
  Speaker 1: identified the following five former USAO attorneys as subjects of
• 40:13
  Speaker 1: its investigation based on information indicating that each of them
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: was involved in the decision to resolve the case through
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: the NPA or in the negotiations leading to the agreement.
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: Former us Attorney R. Alexander Acosta and former AUSA Jeffrey H. Slowman,
• 40:30
  Speaker 1: Matthew I. Menchel, Andrew C. Lorie, and Anne Maurice C. Villafauna.
• 40:36
  Speaker 1: Each subject submitted written responses detailing their involvement in the
• 40:40
  Speaker 1: federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA,
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: and decisions relating to victim notification and consultation. OPR conducted
• 40:50
  Speaker 1: extensive interviews of all five subjects. The subjects also submitted
• 40:54
  Speaker 1: comments on opr's draft report. OPR evaluated the conduct of
• 40:59
  Speaker 1: each subjet rebject based on his or her individual role
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: in various decisions and events and assess that conduct pursue
• 41:06
  Speaker 1: into opr's analytical framework. OPR found that Acosta made the
• 41:11
  Speaker 1: pivotal decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through
• 41:15
  Speaker 1: a state base plea, and either developed or approved the
• 41:18
  Speaker 1: terms of the initial offer to the defense that set
• 41:21
  Speaker 1: the beginning point for the subsequent negotiations that led to
• 41:25
  Speaker 1: the NPA. Although Acosta did not sign the NPA, he
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: participated in its drafting and approved it with knowledge of
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: its terms. Therefore, OPR considers Acosta to be responsible for
• 41:36
  Speaker 1: the NPA and for the actions of the other subjects
• 41:39
  Speaker 1: who implemented his decision. Based on its extensive investigation, OPR
• 41:45
  Speaker 1: concludes that the subject did not commit professional misconduct with
• 41:48
  Speaker 1: respect to the development, negotiation, and approval of the NPA.
• 41:53
  Speaker 1: Under opr's framework, professional misconduct requires a finding that a
• 41:57
  Speaker 1: subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous
• 42:02
  Speaker 1: standard governing the conduct at issue. OPR found no clear
• 42:06
  Speaker 1: and unambiguous standard that required Acosta to indict Epstein on
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: federal charges or that prohibited his decision to defer prosecution
• 42:15
  Speaker 1: to the state. Furthermore, none of the individual terms of
• 42:19
  Speaker 1: the NPA violated departmental or other applicable standards. As the
• 42:25
  Speaker 1: u S Attorney, Acosta had the authority under established federal
• 42:28
  Speaker 1: law and department policy to resolve the case as he
• 42:31
  Speaker 1: deemed necessary and appropriate, as long as his decision was
• 42:35
  Speaker 1: not motivated or influenced by improper factors. Acosta's decision to
• 42:39
  Speaker 1: decline to initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein was within
• 42:43
  Speaker 1: the scope of his authority, and OPR did not find
• 42:46
  Speaker 1: evidence that his decision was based on corruption or other
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: impermissible considerations, such as Epstein's wealth status or associations. Evidence
• 42:56
  Speaker 1: shows that Acosta resisted defense efforts to have the matter
• 42:59
  Speaker 1: at time to the state for whatever result state authorities
• 43:02
  Speaker 1: deemed appropriate, and he refused to eliminate the incarceration and
• 43:06
  Speaker 1: sexual offender registration requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing
• 43:11
  Speaker 1: that Acosta's breakfast meeting with one of Epstein's defense council
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: in October of two thousand and seven led to the NPA,
• 43:18
  Speaker 1: which had been signed weeks earlier, or to any other
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: significant decision that benefited Epstein. The contemporaneous records showed that
• 43:27
  Speaker 1: the USAO managers concerns about legal issues witness credibility and
• 43:31
  Speaker 1: the impact of trial on the victims led them to
• 43:34
  Speaker 1: refer a precharge resolution, and that Acosta's concerns about the
• 43:37
  Speaker 1: proper role of the federal government in prosecuting solicitation crimes
• 43:42
  Speaker 1: resulted in his preference for a state based resolution. Accordingly,
• 43:46
  Speaker 1: OPR does not find that Acosta engaged in a professional
• 43:49
  Speaker 1: misconduct by resolving the federal investigation of Epstein in the
• 43:53
  Speaker 1: way he did, or that the other subjects committed professional
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: misconduct through their implementation of Acosta's decisions. Nevertheless, OPR concludes
• 44:02
  Speaker 1: that a Costa's decision to resolve the federal investigation through
• 44:06
  Speaker 1: the NPA constitutes poor judgment, although this decision was within
• 44:10
  Speaker 1: the scope of Acosta's broad discretion and OPR does find
• 44:14
  Speaker 1: that it resulted from improper factors, the NPA was a
• 44:17
  Speaker 1: flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest that caused the
• 44:21
  Speaker 1: government to open its investigation of Epstein. An Acosta's view,
• 44:25
  Speaker 1: the federal government's role and prosecuting Epstein was limited by
• 44:29
  Speaker 1: principles of federalism, under which the independent authority of the
• 44:33
  Speaker 1: state should be recognized, and the federal responsibility in this
• 44:36
  Speaker 1: situation was to serve as a backstop to state authorities
• 44:40
  Speaker 1: by encouraging them to do more. However, a Costa failed
• 44:44
  Speaker 1: to consider the difficulties inherent in a resolution that relied
• 44:48
  Speaker 1: heavily on action by numerous state officials over whom he
• 44:51
  Speaker 1: had no authority. He resolved the federal investigation before significant
• 44:56
  Speaker 1: investigative steps were completed, and he agreed to several unusual,
• 45:00
  Speaker 1: u and problematic terms in the NPA without the consideration
• 45:03
  Speaker 1: required under the circumstances. In some Acosta's application of federalism
• 45:08
  Speaker 1: principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest
• 45:12
  Speaker 1: in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow, and his understanding of
• 45:15
  Speaker 1: the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision
• 45:19
  Speaker 1: to use the NPA. Furthermore, because a Costa assumed a
• 45:23
  Speaker 1: significant role in reviewing and drafting the NPA, and the
• 45:26
  Speaker 1: other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO, were
• 45:30
  Speaker 1: transitioning to other jobs or were absent at critical junctures,
• 45:34
  Speaker 1: Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination and communication during
• 45:38
  Speaker 1: the negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NPA
• 45:43
  Speaker 1: was a unique resolution and one that required greater oversight
• 45:46
  Speaker 1: in supervision than a costa provided. OPR further concludes that
• 45:51
  Speaker 1: none of the subject attorneys committed professional misconduct with respect
• 45:55
  Speaker 1: to the government's interactions with victims. The subjects did not
• 45:59
  Speaker 1: intentionally or rectlessly violate a clear and unambiguous duty under
• 46:03
  Speaker 1: the CVRA by entering into the NPA without consulting with
• 46:07
  Speaker 1: the victims. Because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation without
• 46:11
  Speaker 1: federal criminal charge. Significantly, at the time the NPA was signed,
• 46:16
  Speaker 1: the Department did not interpret CVR rights to attach unless
• 46:20
  Speaker 1: and until federal charges had been filed, and the federal
• 46:23
  Speaker 1: courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying
• 46:27
  Speaker 1: the CVRA before criminal charges were brought. In addition, OPR
• 46:31
  Speaker 1: did not find evidence that the lack of consultation was
• 46:35
  Speaker 1: for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of
• 46:38
  Speaker 1: consultation was part of a series of government interactions with
• 46:42
  Speaker 1: victims that ultimately led the public and court condemnation of
• 46:46
  Speaker 1: the government's treatment of the victims. Reflected poorly on the
• 46:50
  Speaker 1: Department as a whole, and is contradictory to the department's
• 46:53
  Speaker 1: mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of
• 46:57
  Speaker 1: crime endure. OPR determined that none of the subjects was
• 47:01
  Speaker 1: responsible for communication sent to certain victims after the NPA
• 47:05
  Speaker 1: was signed that described the case as under investigation and
• 47:09
  Speaker 1: that failed to inform them of the NPA. The letters
• 47:12
  Speaker 1: were sent by an FBI administrative employee who was not
• 47:15
  Speaker 1: directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used
• 47:20
  Speaker 1: by the FBI when communicating with victims, and were not
• 47:23
  Speaker 1: drafted or reviewed by the subjects. Moreover, the statement that
• 47:27
  Speaker 1: the matter was under investigation was not false, because the
• 47:30
  Speaker 1: government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation
• 47:34
  Speaker 1: that Epstein would not fulfill the terms of the NPA. However,
• 47:39
  Speaker 1: the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim
• 47:42
  Speaker 1: frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about
• 47:46
  Speaker 1: the status of the investigation. The letters also demonstrated a
• 47:51
  Speaker 1: lack of coordination between the federal agencies responsible for communicating
• 47:55
  Speaker 1: with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of attention to
• 47:58
  Speaker 1: oversight regarding communication with victims. After the MPa was signed,
• 48:03
  Speaker 1: Acosta elected to defer to the state Attorney the decision
• 48:06
  Speaker 1: whether to notify victims about the state plea hearing pursue
• 48:09
  Speaker 1: into the state's own victim rights requirements. Although Acosta's decision
• 48:14
  Speaker 1: was within his authority and did not constitute professional misconduct,
• 48:17
  Speaker 1: OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed
• 48:22
  Speaker 1: to make certain that the state intended to and would
• 48:25
  Speaker 1: notify victims identified through the federal investigation about the plea hearing.
• 48:30
  Speaker 1: His decision led victims uninformed about an important proceeding and
• 48:34
  Speaker 1: resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO
• 48:39
  Speaker 1: had communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created
• 48:44
  Speaker 1: the misimpression that the department intentionally sought to silence the victims.
• 48:48
  Speaker 1: A Costa failed to ensure that victims were made aware
• 48:51
  Speaker 1: of court proceedings that were related to their own cases,
• 48:54
  Speaker 1: and thus he failed to ensure that victims were treated
• 48:56
  Speaker 1: with forthrightness and dignity. ARC concludes that the decision to
• 49:01
  Speaker 1: postpone notifying victims about the terms of the NPA after
• 49:05
  Speaker 1: it was signed, and the omission of information about the
• 49:08
  Speaker 1: NPA during victim interviews and conversations with victims attorneys in
• 49:12
  Speaker 1: two thousand and eight do not constitute professional misconduct. Contemporaneous
• 49:17
  Speaker 1: records show that these actions were based on strategic concerns
• 49:21
  Speaker 1: about creating impeachment evidence. At Epstein, victims had financial motives
• 49:25
  Speaker 1: to make claims against them, evidence that could be used
• 49:28
  Speaker 1: against victims at trial, and were not meant for the
• 49:31
  Speaker 1: purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the failure to reevaluate the
• 49:35
  Speaker 1: strategy prior to interviews of victims and discussions with victims
• 49:39
  Speaker 1: attorneys occurring in two thousand and eight led to interactions
• 49:42
  Speaker 1: that contributed to victim's feelings that the government was intentionally
• 49:46
  Speaker 1: concealing information from them. After examining the full scope and
• 49:50
  Speaker 1: context of the government's interactions with victims, OPR concludes that
• 49:55
  Speaker 1: the government's lack of transparency and its inconsistent messages led
• 49:58
  Speaker 1: to victims feeling confused, used, and ill treated by the government.
• 50:02
  Speaker 1: Gave victims and the public the misimpression that the government
• 50:05
  Speaker 1: had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the NPA secret
• 50:08
  Speaker 1: from the victims, and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy
• 50:12
  Speaker 1: of the resulting agreement. The overall result of the subjects
• 50:17
  Speaker 1: handling of this case understandably left many victims feeling ignored
• 50:21
  Speaker 1: and frustrated, and resulted in extensive public criticism in some
• 50:25
  Speaker 1: OPR concludes that the victims were not treated with forthrightness
• 50:29
  Speaker 1: and sensitivity expected by the department. All right, folks, well
• 50:34
  Speaker 1: that does it for this mammoth beast. And I'll tell
• 50:37
  Speaker 1: you what. If I've learned anything about the OPR and
• 50:40
  Speaker 1: the process that goes into it, I've learned this that
• 50:44
  Speaker 1: all of these OIG reports, all of these Inspector General reports,
• 50:49
  Speaker 1: all of these internal investigations never lead to any sort
• 50:52
  Speaker 1: of change. So what's the point. The whole reason that
• 50:55
  Speaker 1: they do it is so that they can come out
• 50:57
  Speaker 1: and get a narrative on the record, and that's what
• 51:00
  Speaker 1: they're doing here, and that's exactly what they did with
• 51:02
  Speaker 1: the OIG report into Epstein's death, and on and on
• 51:06
  Speaker 1: it goes. So you see from getting the whole report
• 51:09
  Speaker 1: yourself that the whole process was straight up garbage, and
• 51:12
  Speaker 1: were once again left with this question, who's watching the watchers?
• 51:18
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, that's gonna do it for this one.
• 51:20
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 51:22
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box.