{"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_count": 348, "url": "https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830776", "pdf_url": "https://epstein-data.com/pdf/EFTA02830776.pdf", "pages": [{"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 0, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 1 of 348\n\nDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE\n\nOFFICE OF\nPROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY\nREPORT\nInvestigation into the\nU.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's\nResolution of Its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of\nJeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation\nNovember 2020\n\nNOTE: THIS REPORT CONTAINS SENSITIVE, PRIVILEGED, AND PRIVACY\nACT PROTECTED INFORMATION. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THE REPORT OR\nITS CONTENTS WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE OFFICE OF\nPROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.\n\nEFTA02830776\n\n", "char_count": 598}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 1, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 2 of 348\n\nEFTA02830777\n\n", "char_count": 85}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 2, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 3 of 348\n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY\nThe Department of Justice (Department) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)\ninvestigated allegations that in 2007-2008, prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the\nSouthern District of Florida (USAO) improperly resolved a federal investigation into the criminal\nconduct of Jeffrey Epstein by negotiating and executing a federal non-prosecution agreement\n(NPA). The NPA was intended to end a federal investigation into allegations that Epstein engaged\nin illegal sexual activity with girls.' OPR also investigated whether USAO prosecutors committed\nprofessional misconduct by failing to consult with victims of Epstein's crimes before the NPA was\nsigned or by misleading victims regarding the status of the federal investigation after the signing.\nI.\n\nOVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND\n\nThe Palm Beach (Florida) Police Department (PBPD) began investigating Jeffrey Epstein\nin 2005, after the parents of a 14-year-old girl complained that Epstein had paid her for a massage.\nEpstein was a multi-millionaire financier with residences in Palm Beach, New York City, and\nother United States and foreign locations. The investigation led to the discovery that Epstein used\npersonal assistants to recruit girls to provide massages to him, and in many instances, those\nmassages led to sexual activity. After the PBPD brought the case to the State Attorney's Office, a\nPalm Beach County grand jury indicted Epstein, on July 19, 2006, for felony solicitation of\nprostitution in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07. However, because the PBPD Chief and the\nlead Detective were dissatisfied with the State Attorney's handling of the case and believed that\nthe state grand jury's charge did not address the totality of Epstein's conduct, they referred the\nmatter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in West Palm Beach for a possible federal\ninvestigation.\nThe FBI brought the matter to an Assistant U.S. At\n... [truncated, 3551 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/2 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=2]", "char_count": 3551}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 3, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 4 of 348\n\nNPA required Epstein to plead guilty in state court to the then-pending state indictment against\nhim and to an additional criminal information charging him with a state offense that would require\nhim to register as a sexual offender—specifically, procurement of minors to engage in prostitution,\nin violation of Florida Statute § 796.03. The NPA required Epstein to make a binding\nrecommendation that the state court sentence him to serve 18 months in the county jail followed\nby 12 months of community control (home detention or \"house arrest\"). The NPA also included\nprovisions designed to facilitate the victims' recovery of monetary damages from Epstein. In\nexchange, the USAO agreed to end its investigation of Epstein and to forgo federal prosecution in\nthe Southern District of Florida of him, four named co-conspirators, and \"any potential\nco-conspirators.\" Victims were not informed of, or consulted about, a potential state resolution or\nthe NPA prior to its signing.\nThe signing of the NPA did not immediately lead to Epstein's guilty plea and incarceration,\nhowever. For the next nine months, Epstein deployed his extensive team of prominent attorneys\nto try to change the terms that his team had negotiated and he had approved, while simultaneously\nseeking to invalidate the entire NPA by persuading senior Department officials that there was no\nfederal interest at issue and the matter should be left to the discretion of state law enforcement\nofficials. Through repeated communications with the USAO and senior Department officials,\ndefense counsel fought the government's interpretation of the NPA's terms. They also sought and\nobtained review by the Department's Criminal Division and then the Office of the Deputy Attorney\nGeneral, primarily on the issue of federal jurisdiction over what the defense insisted was \"a\nquintessentially state matter.\" After reviewing submissions by the defense and the USAO, on\nJu\n... [truncated, 4005 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/3 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=3]", "char_count": 4005}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 4, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 5 of 348\n\nSoon after he was incarcerated, Epstein applied for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's work\nrelease program, and the Sheriff approved his application. In October 2008, Epstein began\nspending 12 hours a day purportedly working at the \"Florida Science Foundation,\" an entity\nEpstein had recently incorporated that was co-located at the West Palm Beach office of one of\nEpstein's attorneys. Although the NPA specified a term of incarceration of 18 months, Epstein\nreceived \"gain time,\" that is, time off for good behavior, and he actually served less than 13 months\nof incarceration. On July 22, 2009, Epstein was released from custody to a one-year term of home\ndetention as a condition of community control, and he registered as a sexual offender with the\nFlorida Department ofLaw Enforcement. After victims and news media filed suit in Florida courts\nfor release of the copy of the NPA that had been filed under seal in the state court file, a state judge\nin September 2009 ordered it to be made public.\nBy mid-2010, Epstein reportedly settled multiple civil lawsuits brought against him by\nvictims seeking monetary damages, including the two petitioners in the CVRA litigation. During\nthe CVRA litigation, the petitioners sought discovery from the USAO, which made substantial\ndocument productions, filed lengthy privilege logs in support of its withholding of documents, and\nsubmitted declarations from the AUSA and the FBI case agents who conducted the federal\ninvestigation. The USAO opposed efforts to unseal various records, as did Epstein, who was\npermitted to intervene in the litigation with respect to certain issues. Nevertheless, the court\nultimately ordered that substantial records relating to the USAO's resolution of the Epstein case\nbe made public. During the course of the litigation, the court made numerous rulings interpreting\nthe CVRA. After failed efforts to settle the case, the parties' cross motions for su\n... [truncated, 3887 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/4 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=4]", "char_count": 3887}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 5, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 6 of 348\n\nabuse of minors. The Miami Herald report led to public outrage and media scrutiny of the\ngovernment's actions.4\nOn February 21, 2019, the district court granted the CVRA case petitioners' Motion for\nPartial Summary Judgment, ruling that the government violated the CVRA in failing to advise the\nvictims about its intention to enter into the NPA.5 The court also found that letters the government\nsent to victims after the NPA was signed, describing the investigation as ongoing, \"mislead [sic]\nthe victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility.\" The court also highlighted\nthe inequity of the USAO's failure to communicate with the victims while at the same time\nengaging in \"lengthy negotiations\" with Epstein's counsel and assuring the defense that the NPA\nwould not be \"made public or filed with the court.\" The court ordered the parties to submit\nadditional briefs regarding the appropriate remedies. After the court's order, the Department\nrecused the USAO from the CVRA litigation and assigned the U.S. Attorney's Office for the\nNorthern District of Georgia to handle the case for the government. Among the remedies sought\nby the petitioners, and opposed by the government, was rescission of the NPA and federal\nprosecution of Epstein.\nOn July 2, 2019, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District ofNew York obtained\na federal grand jury indictment charging Epstein with one count of sex trafficking of minors and\none count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. The indictment alleged that from\n2002 until 2005, Epstein created a vast network of underage victims in both New York and Florida\nwhom he sexually abused and exploited. Epstein was arrested on the charges on July 6, 2019. In\narguing for Epstein's pretrial detention, prosecutors asserted that agents searching Epstein's\nManhattan residence found thousands of photos of nude and half-nude females, including at least\no\n... [truncated, 3896 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/5 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=5]", "char_count": 3896}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 6, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 7 of 348\n\nSecretary of Labor. In a brief oral statement, Acosta explained that continued media attention on\nhis handling of the Epstein investigation rather than on the economy was unfair to the Labor\nDepartment.\nOn August 10, 2019, Epstein was found hanging in his cell and was later pronounced dead.\nThe New York City Chief Medical Examiner concluded that Epstein had committed suicide.\nAs a result of Epstein's death, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of\nNew York filed a nolle prosequi to dismiss the pending indictment against Epstein. On\nAugust 27, 2019, the district court held a hearing at which more than a dozen of Epstein's\nvictims—including victims of the conduct in Florida that was addressed through the NPA—spoke\nabout the impact of Epstein's crimes. The court dismissed the Epstein indictment on\nAugust 29, 2019.\nAfter Epstein's death, the federal district court in Florida overseeing the CVRA litigation\ndenied the petitioners their requested remedies and closed the case as moot. Among its findings,\nthe court concluded that although the government had violated the CVRA, the government had\nasserted \"legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation,\" and therefore had\nnot litigated in bad faith. The court also noted it expected the government to \"honor its\nrepresentation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the proper\ntreatment of crime victims,\" as well as honoring its promise to meet with the victims.\nOn September 30, 2019, CVRA petitioner \"Jane Doe I\" filed in her true name a petition\nfor a writ of mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, seeking\nreview of the district court's order denying all of her requested remedies. In its responsive brief,\nthe government argued that \"as a matter of law, the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach\nprior to the government charging a case\" and thus, \"the CVR\n... [truncated, 3357 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/6 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=6]", "char_count": 3357}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 7, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 8 of 348\n\nan investigation into the matter and would review the USAO's decision to resolve the federal\ninvestigation of Epstein through the NPA.6\nAfter the district court issued its ruling in the CVRA litigation, on February 21, 2019, OPR\nincluded within the scope of its investigation an examination of the government's conduct that\nformed the basis for the court's findings that the USAO violated the CVRA in failing to afford\nvictims a reasonable right to confer with the government about the NPA before the agreement was\nsigned and that the government affirmatively misled victims about the status of the federal\ninvestigation.\nDuring the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands\nof records from the USAO, the FBI, and other Department components, including the Office of\nthe Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.\nThe records included emails, letters, memoranda, and investigative materials. OPR also collected\nand reviewed materials relating to the state investigation and prosecution of Epstein. OPR also\nexamined extensive publicly available information, including depositions, pleadings, orders, and\nother court records, and reviewed media reports and interviews, articles, podcasts, and books\nrelating to the Epstein case.\nIn addition to this extensive documentary review, OPR conducted more than 60 interviews\nof witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel;\ncurrent and former USAO staff and attorneys; current and former Department attorneys and senior\nmanagers, including a former Deputy Attorney General and a former Assistant Attorney General\nfor the Criminal Division; and the former State Attorney and former Assistant State Attorney in\ncharge of the state investigation of Epstein. OPR also interviewed several victims and attorneys\nrepresenting victims, and reviewed written submi\n... [truncated, 3648 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/7 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=7]", "char_count": 3648}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 8, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 9 of 348\n\ncarefully considered the comments and made changes, or noted comments, as OPR deemed\nappropriate; OPR did not, however, alter its findings and conclusions.\nFinally, OPR reviewed relevant case law, statutes, regulations, Department policy, and\nattorney professional responsibility rules as necessary to resolve the issues presented in this case\nand to determine whether the subjects committed professional misconduct.\nAs part of its investigation, OPR examined the interactions between state officials and the\nfederal investigators and prosecutors, but because OPR does not have jurisdiction over state\nofficials, OPR did not investigate, or reach conclusions about, their conduct regarding the state\ninvestigation.' Because OPR's mission is to ensure that Department attorneys adhere to the\nstandards of professional conduct, OPR's investigation focused on the actions of the subject\nattorneys rather than on determining the full scope of Epstein's and his assistants' criminal\nbehavior. Accordingly, OPR considered the evidence and information regarding Epstein's and his\nassistants' conduct as it was known to the subjects at the time they performed their duties as\nDepartment attorneys. Additional evidence and information that came to light after June 30, 2008,\nwhen Epstein entered his guilty plea under the NPA, did not affect the subjects' actions prior to\nthat date, and OPR did not evaluate the subjects' conduct on the basis of that subsequent\ninformation.\nOPR's investigation occurred approximately 12 years after most of the significant events\nrelating to the USAO's investigation of Epstein, the NPA, and Epstein's guilty plea. As a result,\nmany of the subjects and witnesses were unable to recall the details of events or their own or\nothers' actions occurring in 2006-2008, such as conversations, meetings, or documents they\nreviewed at the time.8 However, OPR's evaluation of the subjects' conduct was aided signi\n... [truncated, 3859 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/8 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=8]", "char_count": 3859}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 9, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 10 of 348\n\ninvestigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.9 OPR also has jurisdiction to investigate allegations\nof misconduct against Department law enforcement agents when they relate to a Department\nattorney's alleged professional misconduct.\nIn its investigations, OPR determines whether a clear and unambiguous standard governs\nthe challenged conduct and whether a subject attorney violated that standard. Department\nattorneys are subject to various legal obligations and professional standards in the performance of\ntheir duties, including the Constitution, statutes, standards of conduct imposed by attorney\nlicensing authorities, and Department regulations and policies. OPR finds misconduct when it\nconcludes by a preponderance of the evidence that a subject attorney violated such a standard\nintentionally or recklessly. Pursuant to OPR's analytical framework, when OPR concludes that\n(I) no clear and unambiguous standard governs the conduct in question or (2) the subject did not\nintentionally or recklessly violate the standard that governs the conduct, then it concludes that the\nsubject's conduct does not constitute professional misconduct. In some cases, OPR may conclude\nthat a subject attorney's conduct does not satisfy the elements necessary for a professional\nmisconduct finding, but that the circumstances warrant another finding. In such cases, OPR may\nconclude that a subject attorney exercised poor judgment, made a mistake, or otherwise acted\ninappropriately under the circumstances. OPR may also determine that the subject attorney's\nconduct was appropriate under the circumstances. 19\nIV.\n\nISSUES CONSIDERED\n\nIn this investigation, OPR considered two distinct sets of allegations. The first relates to\nthe negotiation, execution, and implementation of the NPA. The second relates to the USAO's\ninteractions with Epstein's victims and adherence to the requirements of the CVRA. The two sets\nof issues are descri\n... [truncated, 3994 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/9 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=9]", "char_count": 3994}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 10, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 11 of 348\n\nof immunity, or (6) the deportation of criminal aliens. The potentially applicable standards that\nOPR considered as to each of these issues are identified and discussed later in this Report. OPR\nalso examined whether the evidence establishes that any of the subjects were influenced to enter\ninto the NPA, or to include in the NPA terms favorable to Epstein, because of an improper motive,\nsuch as a bribe, political consideration, personal interest, or favoritism. OPR also examined and\ndiscusses in this Report significant events that occurred after the NPA was negotiated and signed\nthat shed additional light on the USAO's handling of the Epstein investigation.\nB.\n\nThe District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA\n\nTo address the district court's adverse judicial findings, OPR assessed the manner, content,\nand timing of the government's interactions with victims both before and after the NPA was\nsigned, including victim notification letters issued by the USAO and the FBI and interviews\nconducted by the USAO. OPR considered whether any of the subject attorneys violated any clear\nand unambiguous standard governing victim consultation or notification. OPR examined the\ngovernment's lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed, as well as the\ncircumstances relating to the district court's finding that the USAO affirmatively misled Epstein's\nvictims about the status of the federal investigation after the NPA was signed.\nV.\n\nOPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS\n\nOPR evaluated the conduct of each subject and considered his or her individual role in\nvarious decisions and events. Acosta, however, made the pivotal decision to resolve the federal\ninvestigation of Epstein through a state-based plea and either developed or approved the terms of\nthe initial offer to the defense that set the beginning point for the subsequent negotiations that led\nto the NPA. Although Acosta did not sign \n... [truncated, 3605 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/10 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=10]", "char_count": 3605}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 11, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 12 of 348\n\ninitiate a federal prosecution of Epstein was within the scope of his authority, and OPR did not\nfind evidence that his decision was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations,\nsuch as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. Evidence shows that Acosta resisted defense\nefforts to have the matter returned to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed\nappropriate, and he refused to eliminate the incarceration and sexual offender registration\nrequirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta's \"breakfast meeting\" with one\nof Epstein's defense counsel in October 2007 led to the NPA, which had been signed weeks earlier,\nor to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein. The contemporaneous records show\nthat USAO managers' concerns about legal issues, witness credibility, and the impact of a trial on\nthe victims led them to prefer a pre-charge resolution and that Acosta's concerns about the proper\nrole of the federal government in prosecuting solicitation crimes resulted in his preference for a\nstate-based resolution. Accordingly, OPR does not find that Acosta engaged in professional\nmisconduct by resolving the federal investigation of Epstein in the way he did or that the other\nsubjects committed professional misconduct through their implementation of Acosta's decisions.\nNevertheless, OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation\nthrough the NPA constitutes poor judgment. Although this decision was within the scope of\nAcosta's broad discretion and OPR does not find that it resulted from improper factors, the NPA\nwas a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest that caused the government to open its\ninvestigation of Epstein. In Acosta's view, the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein\nwas limited by principles of federalism, under which the independent authority of the state should\nbe recognized, and \n... [truncated, 4155 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/11 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=11]", "char_count": 4155}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 12, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 13 of 348\n\ninteractions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's\ntreatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is contradictory to the\nDepartment's mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure.\nOPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to\ncertain victims after the NPA was signed that described the case as \"under investigation\" and that\nfailed to inform them of the NPA. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who\nwas not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the\nFBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects.\nMoreover, the statement that the matter was \"under investigation\" was not false because the\ngovernment in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill\nthe terms of the NPA. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim\nfrustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the\ninvestigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies\nresponsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of attention to and\noversight regarding communication with victims.\nAfter the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision\nwhether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing pursuant to the state's own victim's rights\nrequirements. Although Acosta's decision was within his authority and did not constitute\nprofessional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to\nmake certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal\ninvestigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about a\n... [truncated, 3976 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/12 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=12]", "char_count": 3976}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 13, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 14 of 348\n\nthat the victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the\nDepartment.\nVI.\n\nORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT\n\nThe Report is divided into three chapters. In Chapter One, OPR describes the relevant\nfederal, state, and local law enforcement entities involved in investigating Epstein's criminal\nconduct, as well as the backgrounds of the five subjects and their roles in the events in question.\nOPR provides a brief profile of Epstein and identifies the defense attorneys who interacted with\nthe subjects.\nIn Chapter Two, OPR sets forth an extensive account of events relating to the federal\ninvestigation of Epstein. The account begins with the initial complaint in March 2005 by a young\nvictim and her parents to the local police—a complaint that launched an investigation by local law\nenforcement authorities—and continues through the mid-2006 opening of the federal\ninvestigation; the September 2007 negotiation and signing of the NPA; Epstein's subsequent\nefforts to invalidate the NPA through appeals to senior Department officials; Epstein's June 2008\nguilty plea in state court; and, finally, efforts by the AUSA to ensure Epstein's compliance with\nthe terms of the NPA during his incarceration and until his term of home detention ended in July\n2010. After describing the relevant events, OPR analyzes the professional misconduct allegations\nrelating to the decisions made regarding the development and execution of the NPA. OPR\ndescribes the relevant standards and sets forth its findings and conclusions regarding the subjects'\nconduct.\nChapter Three concerns the government's interactions with victims and the district court's\nfindings regarding the CVRA. OPR describes the relevant events and analyzes the subjects'\nconduct in light of the pertinent standards.\nOPR sets forth the extensive factual detail provided in Chapters Two and Three, including\ninternal USAO and Department communication\n... [truncated, 2143 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/13 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=13]", "char_count": 2143}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 14, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 15 of 348\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\ni\n\nI.\n\nOVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND\n\ni\n\nII.\n\nTHE INITIATION AND SCOPE OF OPR'S INVESTIGATION\n\nv\n\nIII.\n\nOVERVIEW OF OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK\n\nvii\n\nIV.\n\nISSUES CONSIDERED\n\nviii\n\nA.\n\nThe Negotiation, Execution, and Implementation of the NPA\n\nviii\n\nB.\n\nThe District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA\n\nix\n\nV.\n\nVI.\n\nOPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS\n\nix\n\nA.\n\nFindings and Conclusions Relating to the NPA\n\nix\n\nB.\n\nFindings and Conclusions Relating to the Government's Interactions\nwith Victims\n\nx\n\nORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT\n\nxii\n\nCHAPTER ONE: SIGNIFICANT ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS\n\n1\n\nI.\n\n1\n\nTHE FEDERAL AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES\nA.\nB.\n\nThe Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the\nSouthern District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation\n\nI\n\nThe State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies\n\n4\n\nII.\n\nTHE SUBJECT ATTORNEYS AND THEIR ROLES IN THE EPSTEIN CASE\n\n4\n\nIII.\n\nJEFFREY EPSTEIN AND HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEYS\n\n8\n\nA.\n\nJeffrey Epstein\n\n8\n\nB.\n\nEpstein's Defense Attorneys\n\n8\n\nCHAPTER TWO: THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT\n\nII\n\nPART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND\n\nII\n\nI.\n\nOVERVIEW\n\n11\n\nII.\n\nMARCH 2005 - MAY 2006: EPSTEIN IS INVESTIGATED BY THE PALM\nBEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PALM BEACH COUNTY\nSTATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE\n\n11\n\nA.\n\nThe Initial Allegations and the PBPD Investigation\n\nII\n\nB.\n\nThe State Attorney's Office Decides to Present the Case to a State\nGrand Jury\n\n14\n\nC.\n\nFlorida State Procedure for Bringing Criminal Charges\n\n15\n\nD.\n\nPBPD Chief Reiter Becomes Concerned with the State Attorney's Office's\nHandling of the State Investigation and Seeks a Federal Investigation\n\n16\n\nEFTA02830790\n\n", "char_count": 1747}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 15, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nIII.\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 16 of 348\n\nTHE FBI AND THE USAO INVESTIGATE EPSTEIN, AND THE\nDEFENSE TEAM ENGAGES WITH THE USAO\nA.\n\n16\n\nMay 2006 — February 2007: The Federal Investigation Is Initiated,\nand the USAO Opens a Case File\n\n16\n\nI.\n\nThe PBPD Presents the Matter to the FBI and the USAO\n\n17\n\n2.\n\nMay 2006: The USAO Accepts the Case and Opens a Case File\n\n18\n\n3.\n\nJuly 14, 2006: Villafafia Informs Acosta and Sloman about the Case\n\n18\n\n4.\n\nLate July 2006: The State Indicts Epstein, and the USAO\nMoves Forward with a Federal Investigation\n\n20\n\nOctober 2006 — February 2007: Epstein's Defense Counsel\nInitiate Contact with Villafafia, Lourie, and Sloman, and\nPress for a Meeting\n\n22\n\nFebruary 2007: Defense Counsel Meet with Lourie and\nVillafafia and Present the Defense Objections to a Federal Case\n\n24\n\n5.\n\n6.\nB.\n\nFebruary — May 2007: Villafafia and the FBI Continue to Investigate;\nVillafafia Drafts a Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Indictment\nfor USAO Managers to Review\n\nC.\n\nMay — June 2007: Miami Managers Consider the Prosecution Memorandum\nand Proposed Charges\n\n27\n\nDefense Counsel Seek a Meeting with Senior USAO Managers, which\nVillafafia Opposes\n\n30\n\nE.\n\nJune 2007: Villafafia Supplements the Prosecution Memorandum\n\n33\n\nF.\n\nThe June 26, 2007 Meeting with Defense Counsel\n\n33\n\nD.\n\nIV.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nACOSTA DECIDES TO OFFER EPSTEIN A TWO-YEAR STATE PLEA TO\nRESOLVE THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION\nA.\n\nJune — July 2007: The USAO Proposes a State Plea Resolution,\nwhich the Defense Rejects\nI.\n2.\n\nB.\nC.\nD.\n\n35\n36\n\nAcosta's Explanation for His Decision to Pursue a\nState-based Resolution\n\n37\n\nJuly 2007: Villafafia and Menchel Disagree about the\nProposed State Resolution\n\n40\n\nVillafafia Attempts to Obtain the Computer Equipment Missing from\nEpstein's Palm Beach Home, but the Defense Team Opposes Her Efforts\n\n45\n\nJuly 2007: The Defense Continues Its Efforts to Stop the\nFederal Investigation\n\n47\n\nAcosta Decides on a Resolution That Includes a Two-Year Tcrm of\nIn\n... [truncated, 2079 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/15 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=15]", "char_count": 2079}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 16, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\n2.\nE.\nV.\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 17 of 348\n\nThe Subjects' Explanations for the Decision to Offer Epstein\na Sentence with a Two-Year Term of Incarceration\n\nVillafana Drafts a \"Term Sheet\" Listing the Requirements of a Potential\nAgreement with the Defense\n\nTHE USAO PRESENTS EPSTEIN WITH KEY TERMS OF A DEAL: PLEAD\nGUILTY TO STATE CHARGES REQUIRING A TWO-YEAR TERM OF\nINCARCERATION AND SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION, AND AGREE\nTO A MEANS FOR THE VICTIMS TO OBTAIN MONETARY DAMAGES\nA.\nB.\nC.\n\n49\n51\n\n53\n\nJuly 31, 2007: The USAO Presents Its Proposal to the Defense Team,\nwhich Makes a Counteroffer\n\n54\n\nIn an August 3, 2007 Letter, the USAO States That a Two-Year Term of\nImprisonment Is the Minimum That Will Vindicate the Federal Interest\n\n55\n\nAugust — September 2007: Epstein Hires Additional Attorneys, Who\nMeet with Acosta\n\n59\n\nI.\n\nAcosta Agrees to Meet with Epstein's New Attorneys\n\n59\n\n2.\n\nLeading to the Meeting with Defense Counsel, Investigative\nSteps Are Postponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose\nVillafafia's Efforts to Obtain the Computer Evidence\n\n60\n\nSeptember 7, 2007: Acosta, Other USAO Attorneys, and\nFBI Supervisors Meet with Epstein Attorneys Starr, Lefkowitz,\nand\n\n62\n\n3.\n\nVI.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nSEPTEMBER 2007: THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS INTENSIFY, AND IN THE\nPROCESS, THE REQUIRED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS REDUCED\n\n63\n\nA.\n\nThe Incarceration Term Is Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months\n\n63\n\nB.\n\nSeptember 12, 2007: The USAO and Defense Counsel Meet with\nthe State Attorney\n\n64\n\nThe Evidence Does Not Clearly Show Why the Term of Incarceration\nWas Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months to 18 Months\n\n66\n\nThe Parties Continue to Negotiate but Primarily Focus on a Potential Plea\nto Federal Charges\n\n68\n\nE.\n\nThe Parties Appear to Reach Agreement on a Plea to Federal Charges\n\n72\n\nF.\n\nDefense Counsel Offers New Proposals Substantially Changing the\nTerms of the Federal Plea Agreement, which the USAO Rejects\n\n73\n\nVillafafia and Lourie Recommend Ending Negotiations, but\n... [truncated, 2180 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/16 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=16]", "char_count": 2180}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 17, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nI.\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 18 of 348\n\nThe Defense Rejects the Federal Plea Agreement, Returns to the NPA\n\"State-Only\" Resolution, and Begins Opposing the Sexual Offender\nRegistration Requirement\n\n78\n\nJ.\n\nThe USAO Agrees Not to Criminally Charge \"Potential Co-Conspirators\"\n\n79\n\nK.\n\nThe USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender\nRegistration Requirement\n\n81\n\nThe Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause\n\n83\n\nL.\nVII.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nSEPTEMBER 24, 2007: ACOSTA MAKES FINAL EDITS, AND THE\nNPA IS SIGNED\n\n84\n87\n\nVIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS\nA.\n\nSeptember — October 2007: Sloman's Concerns about Selection of an\nAttorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA Addendum\n\n87\n\nOctober 12, 2007: Acosta and Defense Attorney Leflcowitz\nMeet for Breakfast\n\n89\n\nAcosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Postpone Epstein's Guilty Plea;\nthe Parties Continue to Negotiate Issues concerning the Attorney\nRepresentative and Finally Reach Agreement on the NPA Addendum\n\n91\n\nD.\n\nEpstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea\n\n94\n\nE.\n\nEpstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA's § 2255 Provision\nRelating to Monetary Damages for the Victims\n\n94\n\nDespite Affirming the NPA, Defense Counsel Intensify Their Challenges\nto It and Accuse Villafaria of Improper Conduct\n\n98\n\nB.\nC.\n\nF.\n\nI.\n\n2.\n\n3.\n4.\n5.\n6.\nIX.\n\nDecember 7 and 11, 2007: Starr and Leflcowitz Send to\nAcosta Letters and \"Ethics Opinions\" Complaining about\nthe Federal Investigation and Villafatia\n\n98\n\nAs a Result of the Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions, the New\nUSAO Criminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence,\nand Acosta Agrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel\n\n99\n\nThe Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department\nReview of the USAO's Actions\n\n99\n\nAcosta Attempts to Revise the NPA § 2255 Language concerning\nMonetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not Accept It\n\n100\n\nJanuary 7, 2008: Acosta and Sloman Meet with\nMakes Additional Allegations of USAO Misconduct\n\n101\n\nWho\n\nAcosta Asks CEOS to Review the Ev\n... [truncated, 2160 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/17 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=17]", "char_count": 2160}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 18, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nB.\nX.\n\nXI.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 19 of 348\n\nMay — June 23, 2008: Review by the Office of the Deputy\nAttorney General\n\n108\n\nJUNE 2008 - JUNE 2009: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS PLEAS AND\nSERVES HIS CUSTODIAL SENTENCE\n\n110\n\nA.\n\nJune 30, 2008: Epstein Enters His Guilty Pleas in State Court\n\n111\n\nB.\n\nEpstein Is Placed on Work Release\n\n113\n\nPOST-RELEASE DEVELOPMENTS\n\n117\n\nPART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS\n\n119\n\nI.\n\nOPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK\n\n119\n\nIl.\n\nAPPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT\n\n120\n\nA.\n\n120\n\nThe United States Attorneys' Manual\nI.\n\nB.\n\nC.\n\nD.\n\nUSAM Provisions Relating to the Initiation and Declination\nof a Federal Prosecution\n\n120\n\n2.\n\nUSAM § 9-2.031: The Petite Policy\n\n122\n\n3.\n\nUSAM Provisions Relating to Plea Agreements\n\n123\n\n4.\n\nUSAM Provisions Relating to Non-Prosecution Agreements\n\n124\n\n5.\n\nUSAM Provisions Relating to Grants of Immunity\n\n125\n\n6.\n\nUSAMJC.F.R. Provisions Relating to Financial Conflicts of Interest\n\n125\n\nOther Department Policies\n\n125\n\nI.\n\nDepartment Policies Relating to the Disposition of Charges\n\n125\n\n2.\n\nDepartment Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens\n\n127\n\nCase Law\n\n127\n\nI.\n\nProsecutorial Discretion\n\n127\n\n2.\n\nPlea Agreement Promises of Leniency towards a Third Party\n\n128\n\nState Bar Rules\n\n129\n\nI.\n\nFRPC 4-1.1 —Competence\n\n130\n\n2.\n\nFRPC 4-1.3 — Diligence\n\n130\n\n3.\n\nFRPC 4-4.1 — Candor in Dealing with Others\n\n130\n\n4.\n\nFRPC 4-8.4 — Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice\n\n131\n\nPART THREE: ANALYSIS\n\n133\n\nI.\n\nOVERVIEW\n\n133\n\nII.\n\nACOSTA REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE TERMS OF THE NPA AND IS\nACCOUNTABLE FOR IT\n\n133\n\nxvii\n\nEFTA02830794\n\n", "char_count": 1624}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 19, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nIII.\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 20 of 348\n\nOPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND\nUNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR\nSTANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN\nNEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA\n\n134\n\nU.S. Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or\nCases as They Deem Appropriate, and Acosta's Decision to Decline\nto Prosecute Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional\nMisconduct\n\n135\n\nNo Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta's Use of a\nNon-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation\nof Epstein\n\n136\n\nThe NPA's Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and\nUnambiguous Standards\n\n137\n\nA.\n\nB.\n\nC.\n\nI.\n\n2.\n\n3.\nIV.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nAcosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required\nEpstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of\nIncarceration\n\n137\n\nThe USAO's Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified \"Potential\nCo-Conspirators\" Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous\nDepartment Policy\n\n139\n\nThe NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to\nDeportation of Criminal Aliens\n\n140\n\nTHE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE\nINFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA\nTERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND\nBENEFITS TO EPSTEIN\n\n140\n\nA.\n\nOPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity,\nor Illegal Political or Personal Consideration\n141\n\nB.\n\nContemporaneous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews\nDid Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were\nImproperly Influenced by Epstein's Status, Wealth, or Associations\nI.\n2.\n\n3.\n\nC.\n\n142\n\nThe Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence\nEstablishing That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors\n\n142\n\nThe Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by\nReasonable Strategic and Policy Considerations, Not\nImproper Influences\n\n143\n\nSubject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records\nIdentified Case-Specific\n... [truncated, 2272 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/19 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=19]", "char_count": 2272}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 20, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nD.\n\n2.\n\nPage 21 of 348\n\n150\n\nThe Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Extended\nAny Improper Benefit to Epstein because of Their Preexisting\nRelationships with His Attorneys\n\n150\n\nThe Subjects Asserted That Their Relationships with Defense\nCounsel Did Not Influence Their Actions\n\n151\n\nThe Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects' Meetings with\nDefense Counsel Were Improper Benefits to Epstein\nI.\n\n155\n\nThe Evidence Shows That the Subjects' Decisions to Meet with\nEpstein's Legal Team Were Warranted by Strategic Considerations\n\n155\n\nThe Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta Negotiated a\nDeal Favorable to Epstein over Breakfast with Defense Counsel\n\n160\n\nVillafafia's Emails with Defense Attorney Leflcowitz during the NPA\nNegotiations Do Not Establish That Villafafia, or Other Subjects,\nIntended to Give Epstein Preferential Treatment or Were Motivated by\nFavoritism or Other Improper Influences\n\n163\n\nThe Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta, Lourie, or Villafafia\nAgreed to the NPA's Provision Promising Not to Prosecute \"Potential\nCo-conspirators\" in Order to Protect Any of Epstein's Political, Celebrity,\nor Other Influential Associates\n\n166\n\nOPR's Investigation Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That Epstein\nCooperated in Other Federal Investigations or Received Special Treatment\non That Basis\n\n168\n\nACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY RESOLVING THE FEDERAL\nINVESTIGATION THROUGH THE NPA\n\n169\n\n2.\nF.\n\nG.\n\nH.\n\nV.\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nOPR Does Not Find That the Subjects' Preexisting Relationships with\nDefense Counsel, Decisions to Meet with Defense Counsel, and Other\nFactors Established That the Subjects Acted from Improper Influences or\nProvided Improper Benefits to Epstein\nI.\n\nE.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nA.\n\nAcosta's Decision to Resolve the Federal Investigation through a State Plea\nunder Terms Incorporated into the NPA Was Based on a Flawed Application\nof the Petite Policy and Federalism Concerns, and Failed to Consider the\nSignificant Disadvan\n... [truncated, 2613 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/20 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=20]", "char_count": 2613}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 21, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 22 of 348\n\nCHAPTER THREE: ISSUES RELATING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERACTIONS\nAND COMMUNICATIONS WITH VICTIMS\n189\nPART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND\n\n189\n\nI.\n\nOVERVIEW\n\n189\n\nII.\n\nTHE CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771\n\n189\n\nA.\n\nHistory\n\n189\n\nB.\n\nEnumerated Rights\n\n191\n\nIII.\n\nIV.\n\nV.\n\nVI.\n\nTHE DEPARTMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CVRA'S DEFINITION OF\n\"CRIME VICTIM\" AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION\n\n192\n\nA.\n\nApril 1, 2005 Office of Legal Counsel \"Preliminary Review\"\n\n192\n\nB.\n\n2005 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance\n\n193\n\nUSAO AND FBI VICTIM/WITNESS NOTIFICATION PRACTICE AT THE\nTIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION\n\n194\n\nA.\n\nUSAO Training\n\n194\n\nB.\n\nThe Automated Victim Notification System\n\n195\n\nC.\n\nFBI Victim Notification Pamphlets\n\n196\n\nTHE INTRODUCTORY USAO AND FBI LETTERS TO VICTIMS\n\n196\n\nA.\n\nAugust 2006: The FBI Victim Notification Letters\n\n196\n\nB.\n\nAugust 2006: The USAO's Letters to Victims\n\n198\n\nC.\n\nUSAO and FBI Letters Are Hand Delivered\n\n200\n\nAUGUST 2006 - SEPTEMBER 2007: FBI AND USAO CONTACTS WITH\nVICTIMS BEFORE THE NPA IS SIGNED\nA.\n\nThe Case Agents and Villafafia Solicit Some Victims' Opinions about\nResolving the Federal Investigation\n\n201\n\nBefore the NPA Is Signed, Villafafia Expresses Concern That Victims\nHave Not Been Consulted\n\n202\n\nI.\n\nJuly 2007: Villafafia's Email Exchanges with Menchel\n\n202\n\n2.\n\nVillafafia Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not\nto Consult Victims about the Plea Discussions, but Her Supervisors\nDo Not Currently Recall Such Instructions\n\n204\n\nSeptember 6, 2007: Villafafia Informs Sloman, Who Informs\nAcosta, of Oosterbaan's Opinion That Consultation with Victims\nWas Required\n\n204\n\nSEPTEMBER 24, 2007 - JUNE 30, 2008: AFTER THE NPA IS SIGNED, THE\nUSAO MAKES VARIOUS VICTIM NOTIFICATION DECISIONS\n\n206\n\nB.\n\n3.\n\nVII.\n\n200\n\nxx\n\nEFTA02830797\n\n", "char_count": 1874}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 22, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nA.\n\nB.\nC.\n\nD.\n\nE.\n\nF.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 23 of 348\n\nSeptember — October 2007: The Case Agents Notify Some Victims about\nthe NPA, but Stop When the Case Agent Becomes Concerned about\nPotential Impeachment\n\n207\n\nOctober 2007: Defense Attorneys Object to Government Victim\nNotifications\n\n210\n\nOctober — November 2007: The FBI and the USAO Continue to\nInvestigate, and the FBI Sends a Notice Letter to One Victim Stating\nThat the Case is \"Under Investigation\"\n\n211\n\nThe USAO Informs the Defense That It Intends to Notify Victims by\nLetter about Epstein's State Plea Hearing and the Resolution of the Federal\nInvestigation, but the Defense Strongly Objects to the Notification Plan\n\n212\n\nDecember 19, 2007: Acosta Advises the Defense That the USAO Will\nDefer to the State Attorney the Decision Whether to Notify Victims of the\nState Plea Hearing, but the USAO Would Notify Them of the Federal\nResolution, \"as Required by Law\"\n\n216\n\nJanuary — June 2008: While the Defense Presses Its Appeal to the\nDepartment in an Effort to Undo the NPA, the FBI and the USAO\nContinue Investigating Epstein\n\n220\n\nI.\n\nVillafafia Prepares to Contact Victims in Anticipation That\nEpstein Will Breach the NPA\n\n220\n\nThe FBI Uses VNS Form Letters to Re-Establish Contact with\nVictims\n\n221\n\n3.\n\nVillafafia, the FBI, and the CEOS Trial Attorney Interview Victims\n\n224\n\n4.\n\nFebruary — March 2008: Villafaa Takes Additional Steps to\nPrepare for a Prosecution of Epstein, Arranges for Pro Bono\nAttorneys for Victims, and Cautions about Continued Delay\n\n227\n\nMarch — April 2008: Villafafia Continues to Prepare for Filing\nFederal Charges\n\n227\n\n2.\n\n5.\n\nVIII. USAO SUPERVISORS CONSIDER CVRA OBLIGATIONS IN AN UNRELATED\nMATTER AND IN LIGHT OF A NEW FIFTH CIRCUIT OPINION\n228\nIX.\n\nX.\nXI.\nXII.\n\nJUNE 2008: V I LLAFARA'S PRE-PLEA CONTACTS WITH THE\nATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE VICTIMS WHO LATER BECAME\nTHE CVRA PETITIONERS\n\n229\n\nJUNE 2008: EFFORTS TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT THE JUNE 30, 2008\nPLEA HEARI\n... [truncated, 2281 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/22 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=22]", "char_count": 2281}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 23, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 24 of 348\n\nB.\n\nJuly 7, 2008: The CVRA Litigation Is Initiated\n\n236\n\nC.\n\nJuly 2008: Villa£afia Prepares and Sends a Victim Notification Letter\nto Listed Victims\n\n237\n\nJuly — August 2008: The FBI Sends the Victim Notification Letter to\nVictims Residing Outside of the United States\n\n238\n\nAugust — September 2008: The Federal Court Orders the USAO to\nDisclose the NPA to Victims, and the USAO Sends a Revised Victim\nNotification Letter\n\n239\n\n2010 — 2011: Department and Congressional Actions Regarding\nInterpretation of the CVRA\n\n241\n\nThe CVRA Litigation Proceedings and Current Status\n\n242\n\nD.\nE.\n\nF.\nG.\n\nPART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS\n\n247\n\nI.\n\nSTATUTORY PROVISIONS\n\n247\n\nA.\n\nThe CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771\n\n247\n\nB.\n\nThe Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (VRRA), 34 U.S.C. § 20141,\nServices to Victims (formerly cited as 42 USCA § 10607)\n248\n\nII.\nIII.\n\nDEPARTMENT POLICY: THE 2005 ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES\nFOR VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE (2005 GUIDELINES)\n\n249\n\nFLORIDA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT\n\n253\n\nA.\n\nFRPC 4-4.1 — Candor in Dealing with Others\n\n253\n\nB.\n\nFRPC 4-8.4 — Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice\n\n253\n\nPART THREE: ANALYSIS\n\n255\n\n1.\n\nOVERVIEW\n\n255\n\nII.\n\nTHE SUBJECTS DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS\nSTANDARD BY ENTERING INTO THE NPA WITHOUT CONSULTING\nTHE VICTIMS\n\n255\n\nA.\n\nB.\nIII.\n\nAt the Time, No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Required the USAO\nto Notify Victims Regarding Case-Related Events until after the Filing\nof Criminal Charges\n\n256\n\nOPR Did Not Find Evidence Establishing That the Lack of Consultation\nWas Intended to Silence Victims\n\n258\n\nLETTERS SENT TO VICTIMS BY THE FBI WERE NOT FALSE\nSTATEMENTS BUT RISKED MISLEADING VICTIMS ABOUT THE\nSTATUS OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION\nA.\n\nThe USAO Was Not Responsible for Victim Notification Letters Sent\nby the FBI in October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008 Describing\nthe Status of the Case as \"Under Investigation\"\n\n261\n\n262\n\nEFTA0\n... [truncated, 2009 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/23 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=23]", "char_count": 2009}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 24, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nB.\n\nIV.\n\nPage 25 of 348\n\nBecause the Federal Investigation Continued after the NPA Was Signed,\nthe FBI Letters Were Accurate but Risked Misleading Victims regarding\nthe Status of the Federal Investigation\n\n263\n\nAcosta's Decision to Defer to the State Attorney's Discretion Whether\nto Notify Victims about Epstein's State Court Plea Hearing Did Not\nViolate Any Clear or Unambiguous Standard\n\n265\n\nAcosta Exercised Poor Judgment When He Failed to Ensure That\nVictims Identified in the Federal Investigation Were Informed of the\nState Plea Hearing\n\n269\n\nVILLAFAI;)A DID NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN HER\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' ATTORNEYS, IN\nWHICH SHE DESCRIBED THE CASE AS \"UNDER INVESTIGATION\"\nBUT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE NPA TO SOME\nVICTIMS\n\n273\n\nTHE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO TREAT VICTIMS FORTHRIGHTLY AND\nWITH SENSITIVITY WHEN IT FAILED TO TIMELY PROVIDE VICTIMS\nWITH IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOLUTION OF THE\nFEDERAL INVESTIGATION\n\n280\n\nB.\n\nVI.\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nACOSTA'S DECISION TO DEFER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S\nDISCRETION WHETHER TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT EPSTEIN'S STATE\nCOURT PLEA HEARING DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR OR UNAMBIGUOUS\nSTANDARD; HOWEVER, ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY\nFAILING TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS IDENTIFIED IN THE FEDERAL\nINVESTIGATION WERE ADVISED OF THE STATE PLEA HEARING\n265\nA.\n\nV.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n283\n\nMETHODOLOGY\n\n287\n\nExhibit 1: State Indictment\nExhibit 2: September 6, 2007 Draft Non-Prosecution Agreement\nExhibit 3: September 24, 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement\nExhibit 4: Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement\nExhibit 5: State Information\n\nEFTA02830800\n\n", "char_count": 1671}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 25, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 26 of 348\n\n[Page Intentionally Left Blank]\n\nxxiv\n\nEFTA02830801\n\n", "char_count": 125}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 26, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 27 of 348\n\nCHAPTER ONE\nSIGNIFICANT ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS\nI.\n\nTHE FEDERAL AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES\nA.\n\nThe Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District\nof Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation\n\nThe Department of Justice (Department) is a cabinet-level executive branch department\nheaded by the United States Attorney General. The stated mission of the Department is to enforce\nfederal law and defend the interests of the United States; ensure public safety; provide federal\nleadership in preventing and controlling crime; seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful\nbehavior; and ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice. The Department enforces\nfederal criminal law through investigations and prosecutions of violations of federal criminal\nstatutes. It also engages in civil litigation. During the period relevant to this Report, the\nDepartment had approximately 110,000 employees in 40 components. The Department's\nheadquarters are in Washington, D.C., and it conducts most of its work through field locations\naround the nation and overseas.\nThe prosecution of federal criminal laws is handled primarily through 94 U.S. Attorney's\nOffices, each headed by a presidentially appointed (with advice and consent of the U.S. Senate)\nU.S. Attorney who has independent authority over his or her office but is overseen by the Attorney\nGeneral through the Deputy Attorney General} The Department's Criminal Division, headed by\nan Assistant Attorney General, includes components with specialized areas of expertise that also\nprosecute cases, assist in the prosecutions handled by U.S. Attorney's Offices, and provide legal\nexpertise and policy guidance. Among the Criminal Division components mentioned in this\nReport are the Appellate Section, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the Computer Crime and\nIntellectual Property Section, and, most prominently, the Child Exp\n... [truncated, 3115 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/26 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=26]", "char_count": 3115}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 27, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 28 of 348\n\nor other divisions having responsibility for specific criminal enforcement, such as the Civil Rights\nDivision. In this Report, OPR applies the USAM provisions in effect at the relevant time.\nDuring the period most relevant to this Report, the Attorney General was Michael\nMukasey, the Deputy Attorney General was Mark Filip, and the Assistant Attorney General for\nthe Criminal Division was Alice Fisher. The Chief of CEOS was Andrew Oosterbaan.\nThe U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) handles federal\nmatters in the Southern District of Florida a\ndistrict, which covers the counties of MiamiDade, Broward, Monroe, Palm Beach,\nSt. Lucie, Indian River, Okeechobee, and\nHighlands, an area of over 15,000 square miles. During the period relevant to this Report, the\nUSAO had a staff of approximately 200 Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) and 200 support\npersonnel. The main office is in Miami; staffed branch offices are located in Fort Lauderdale,\nWest Palm Beach (covering Palm Beach County), and Fort Pierce; and an unstaffed branch office\nis located in Key West. The West Palm Beach USAO office is approximately 70 miles from the\nMiami office. The USAO is headed by the U.S. Attorney; the second-in-command is the First\nAssistant U.S. Attorney (FAUSA), who serves as principal advisor to the U.S. Attorney and\nsupervises all components of the USAO, including the Criminal, Civil, and Appellate Divisions,\neach of which is headed by a Chief. During the period relevant to this Report, the West Palm\nBeach office consisted of two criminal sections and was headed by a Managing AUSA.\nThe Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the principal federal law enforcement agency\nand is part of the Department. It maintains field offices that work with U.S. Attorney's Offices.\nThe FBI field office in Miami, headed by a Special Agent in Charge, has satellite offices, known\nas Resident Agencies, one of whi\n... [truncated, 2498 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/27 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=27]", "char_count": 2498}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 28, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 29 of 348\n\nU.S. Department of Justice\n2006 - 2008\n\nAttorney\nGeneral\nDeputy\nAttorney General\n\nSOLICITOR\nGENERAL\n\nASSOCIATE\nATTORNEY GENERAL\n\nI\nMICE OF ME\nSOLKITOR\n\nPIKE Of\nLEGAL POLICY\n\nOFFICE Of\nPUILUC\nAFFAIRS\n\nOFFICE Of\nLEGISLATIVE\n\nPIKE Of\nUGAL\n\nAFFAIRS\n\nCOUNSEL\n\nGENERAL\n\nCOPANIUNITY\nMOOT°\nPOLICING\nSERWES\n\nOFFICE Of\nRISME\nPROGRAMS\n\nVOCUTIVI\nLAM FORM\nuHrTUI WATTS\n\nOFFICE OF\nINFORMATION\n\nPIKE OF\nDISPUTE\n\n/MIKA CIAIMS\nSETTS/WHY\nCONAPASSJON\n\nAND PRIVACY\n\nRESOLUTION\n\nCIVIL\nDIVISION\n\nCIVIL DIVISION\n\nANTITRUST\nDIVISION\n\nINENONMENT\nWO NATURAL\nRIESOORCIS\n\nTAI DIVISION\n\nCOMMUNITY\nREIATIONS\n\nWW1Ot\nGOVERNMENTAt\nAND PLOW\nUAWN\n\nearAl/\ngetiliat\nOF\nIMASIIIATION\n\nCAW\n10000(IIIINE\nMAWS/ RATION\n\nWORM\nOtiKt 1011\nUNTO: SIAM\nATTORNEYS\n\nSERVICE\n\nONICI\nAGAINST\nAGAINST\nVIONIN\n\nUNITED\nSTATES\nATTORNEYS\n\nH\n\n-I\nH\n\nNATIONAL\nSECURITY\nDIVISION\n\n011Ct\nMONSOONAL\nRISPONSIOUTY\n\nOFFICE OF INC\nINSPECTOR\n\nOFFICE Of THE\nPARDON\n\nGENERAL\n\nATTORNEY\n\nUNIMISIATIS\n\nSOW/\n\n/FLUKY\n1.4tHalhirahlain\nONISION\n\nOA. NATIONAL\nCENTRAL\nDUREAU\nWIDIPOL\n\nDECLITYI\nENKA FOR\nINNAGRATION\nNUM\n\nCalla\n\nBUREAU Of\nPIUSONS\n\numnosuns\n\nOFEKt Oi EWE\nJUL\nDETENTION\n\nntusne\n\nCONSMISSION\n\nNATIONAL DRUG\nNITROGEN:I\nCENTER\n\nPROFISSIONIA\nRESPONDER/TY\nADVISORY\nOFFICE\n\n3\n\nEFTA02830804\n\n", "char_count": 1286}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 29, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nB.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 30 of 348\n\nThe State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies\n\nFlorida state criminal prosecutions are primarily managed by an Office of State Attorney\nin each of the state's 20 judicial circuits, headed by a State Attorney who is elected to a four-year\nterm. Palm Beach County constitutes the 15th Judicial Circuit. Barry Krischer was the elected\nState Attorney for that circuit from 1992 until January 2009. During the period relevant to this\nReport, the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office, based in the City of West Palm Beach,\nhad more than 100 attorneys and several investigators, and a Crimes Against Children Unit headed\nby Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek.\nThe incorporated Town of Palm Beach occupies the coastal barrier island off the city of\nWest Palm Beach. Its law enforcement agency is the Palm Beach Police Department (PBPD).\nMichael Reiter, who joined the PBPD in 1981, served as PBPD Chief from 2001 to February 2009.\nThe Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office (PBSO), based in the City of West Palm Beach, is\nthe largest law enforcement agency in the county. Through its Department of Corrections, the\nPBSO operates the Main Detention Center and, during the period relevant to this Report, housed\nminimum-security detainees, including those on work release, at its Stockade facility. The current\nSheriff has served continuously since January 2005.\nII.\n\nTHE SUBJECT ATTORNEYS AND THEIR ROLES IN THE EPSTEIN CASE\n\nR. Alexander Acosta was appointed Interim U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of\nFlorida in June 2005, at age 36. In June 2006, President\nW. Bush formally nominated\nAcosta, and after Senate confirmation, Acosta was sworn in as the U.S. Attorney in October 2006.\nAfter graduating from law school, Acosta served a federal appellate clerkship; an 18-month\nterm as an associate at the firm of Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C.; approximately four years\nas a policy fellow and law school lecturer;\n... [truncated, 3660 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/29 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=29]", "char_count": 3660}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 30, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 31 of 348\n\nKirkland & Ellis, which was representing Epstein, because Acosta had begun discussions with the\nfirm about possible employment.\nAfter leaving the USAO in June 2009, Acosta became the\nof the Florida International\nUniversity College of Law. In April 2017, Acosta became the U.S. Secretary of Labor, but he\nresigned from that post effective July 19, 2019, following public criticism of the USAO's handling\nof the Epstein case.\nJeffrey H. Sloman joined the USAO in 1990 as a line AUSA. In 2001, he became Deputy\nChief of the USAO's Fort Lauderdale branch office Narcotics and Violent Crimes Section, and in\n2003, became the Managing AUSA for that branch office. In early 2004, Sloman was appointed\nChief of the USAO's Criminal Division. In October 2006, Sloman became the FAUSA, and\nSloman's office was located with Acosta's in the Miami office's executive suite.\nAs FAUSA, Sloman was responsible for supervising the Civil, Criminal, and Appellate\nDivisions, and he was part of the supervisory team that oversaw the Epstein investigation.\nAlthough Sloman had relatively little involvement in the decisions and negotiations that led to the\nNPA and did not review it before it was signed, he personally negotiated an addendum to the NPA,\nwhich he signed on behalf of the USAO in October 2007. After subordinates Matthew Menchel\nand Andrew Lourie left the USAO, Sloman directly engaged with the line AUSA,\nVillafafia,\non Epstein matters, and participated in meetings and other communications with defense counsel.\nAfter Acosta was formally recused from the Epstein matter in December 2008, Sloman became\nthe senior USAO official supervising the matter. When Acosta left the USAO, Sloman became\nthe Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and in January 2010, the Attorney\nGeneral appointed Sloman to be the Interim U.S. Attorney for the district. Sloman left the USAO\nto enter private practice in June 2010.\nMatthew \n... [truncated, 3772 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/30 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=30]", "char_count": 3772}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 31, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 32 of 348\n\nfor the Department's Criminal Division, a position in which he served as Chief of Staff to Assistant\nAttorney General Alice Fisher. Lourie left the Department in February 2008 to enter private\npractice.\nAnn\nC. Villafana joined the USAO in September 2001 as a line AUSA. She served\nin the Major Crimes Section in Miami until January 2004, when she transferred to the West Palm\nBeach branch office. Villafafia handled the majority of the child exploitation cases in West Palm\nBeach, along with other criminal matters. hi 2006, she was designated as the USAO's first\ncoordinator for Project Safe Childhood, a new Department initiative focusing on child sexual\nexploitation and abuse.2\nIn 2006, Villafafia assumed responsibility for the Epstein investigation. As the line AUSA,\nVillafafia handled all aspects of the investigation. Villafafia determined the lines of inquiry to\npursue, identified the witnesses to be interviewed, conducted legal research to support possible\ncharges, and sought guidance from others at the USAO and in the Department. Villafafia, along\nwith the FBI case agents and the FBI Victim Specialist, had direct contact with Epstein's victims.\nShe handled court proceedings related to the investigation. She drafted a prosecution\nmemorandum, indictment, and related documents, and revised those documents in response to\ncomments from those in her supervisory chain of command. Villafafia participated in meetings\nbetween members of the USAO and counsel for Epstein, and prepared briefing materials for\nmanagement in preparation for those meetings and in response to issues raised during those\nmeetings. Although Acosta made the decision to utilize a non-prosecution agreement to resolve\nthe federal investigation and approved the terms of the NPA, Villafaria was the primary USAO\nrepresentative negotiating with defense counsel and drafting the language of the NPA, under her\nsupervisors' direction and guidan\n... [truncated, 3416 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/31 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=31]", "char_count": 3416}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 32, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 33 of 348\n\nUSAO Roles and Responsibilities in Epstein Investigation\nMid-2006 through Mid-2009\n2006\n\nI\n\n2007\n.klexander timta\n\nUnited States Attorney\n\nFirst Assistant\nUnited Slates Attorney\n\nCriminal Chief\n\n2008\n\nI\n\n2009\nJeff Montan (Acting)\n\nJeff Montan\n\nlift SI\n\nan\n\nMatthew Menthe'\n\nManaging Assistant\nUnited States Attorney\nWest Palm Beach Office\nAssistant\nUnited States Attorney\n\nMal. 21, 2006\n''SAO opens Infetal\nin‘cstiganon min\n'cure!. I p+tein\n\nluxe 30, 2006 Epstein pleads guilty in\nstate court\n\nSept 24.2007 NPA is sivxd\n\nJuly 22.2009 -Epstein is released from\nincarceration\n\n7\n\nEFTA02830808\n\n", "char_count": 664}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 33, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nIII.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 34 of 348\n\nJEFFREY EPSTEIN AND HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEYS\nA.\n\nJeffrey Epstein\n\nJeffrey Epstein was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1953.4 Although he did not graduate\nfrom college, he taught physics and mathematics to teens at an elite private school in Manhattan\nfrom 1974 until 1976. Through connections made at the school, he was hired at the Wall Street\nfirm of Bear Stearns, where he\nfrom junior assistant to a floor trader to become a limited\npartner before leaving in 1981. An enigmatic individual whose source of wealth was never clear,\nEpstein reportedly provided wealth management and advisory services to a business entrepreneur\nthrough whom Epstein acquired a mansion in midtown Manhattan, where he resided. In the early\n1990s, Epstein acquired a large residence in Palm Beach, Florida. He also owned a private island\nin the U.S. Virgin Islands, a ranch in New Mexico, and a residence in Paris, France. He traveled\namong his residences in a private Boeing 727 jet.\nEpstein reportedly was an investor, founder, or principal in myriad businesses and other\nentities, in numerous locations. Although frequently referred to as a billionaire, the sources and\nextent of his wealth were never publicly established during his lifetime.5 He associated with\nprominent and wealthy individuals from business, political, academic, and social circles, and\nengaged in substantial philanthropy. Epstein maintained a large corps of employees, including\nhousekeeping staff and pilots, as well as numerous female personal assistants, several of whom\ntraveled with him.\nB.\n\nEpstein's Defense Attorneys\n\nJeffrey Epstein employed numerous criminal defense attorneys in responding to the\nallegations that he had coerced girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm Beach,\nFlorida estate. As different law enforcement entities became involved in investigating the\nallegations, he added attorneys having particular relevant knowledge of, \n... [truncated, 3625 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/33 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=33]", "char_count": 3625}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 34, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 35 of 348\n\nwhose law firm website cites his \"national reputation for the aggressive defense\" of \"high-profile\ndefendants in criminal matters.\"\nIn late 2006, after the USAO opened its investigation Epstein hired Miami criminal\ndefense attorneys who were former AUSAs. One, Guy =,\nhad also served as the U.S.\nAttorney for the Southern District of Florida and as Director of the Department's Executive Office\nfor United States Attorneys, the component charged withSling close liaison between the\nDepartment and the U.S. Attorneys. Another, Lilly Ann\n, had served in the USAO and\nCrimes\nSection\nbefore\nleaving\nin 2005. In August 2007,\nas a Deputy Chief in the Major\nimmediately after the USAO offered the terms that ultimately led to the NPA, two attorneys from\nthe firm of Kirkland & Ellis, one of the largest law firms in the country, contacted the USAO on\nDmin's behalf: Kenneth Starr, former federal judge and Solicitor General, who was serving as\nME of Pepperdine University School of Law while of counsel to the firm; and Jay Leibowitz, a\nlitigation partner who had served in high-level positions in the administrations of Presidents\nH.W. Bush and la\nW. Bush. They were joined by nationally prominent Boston\ncriminal defense attorney\nWeinberg. After the NPA was signed, former U.S. Attorney\nJoe D. Whitley joined the defense team, as did the former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS and\nanother former U.S. Attorney, who was also a retired federal judge.\n\n9\n\nEFTA02830810\n\n", "char_count": 1533}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 35, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 36 of 348\n\n[Page Intentionally Left Blank]\n\nI0\n\nEFTA02830811\n\n", "char_count": 123}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 36, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 37 of 348\n\nCHAPTER TWO\nTHE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT\nPART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND\nI.\n\nOVERVIEW\n\nIn the following sections in this chapter, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)\ndetails the significant events leading to, and during, the federal investigation of Epstein; the\nnegotiation and signing of the NPA; and the defense's subsequent nine-month effort to stop the\nNPA from taking effect. OPR also describes more briefly the events occurring after Epstein pled\nguilty in state court, as the USAO sought to hold him to the terms of the agreement. In describing\nevents, OPR relies heavily on contemporaneous documents, particularly emails. In many\ninstances, the emails not only describe meetings and identify the participants, but also set forth the\nissues under discussion, the alternatives considered, and the basis for certain decisions. When\nhelpful to explain the actions taken by the subjects, OPR also includes the subjects' explanations\nas provided in their written responses to, or interviews with, OPR, or explanations provided by\nwitnesses.\nA timeline of key events is set forth on the following page.\nII.\n\nMARCH 2005 — MAY 2006: EPSTEIN IS INVESTIGATED BY THE PALM\nBEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PALM BEACH COUNTY STATE\nATTORNEY'S OFFICE\nA.\n\nThe Initial Allegations and the PBPD Investigation\n\nIn March 2005, the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported to the PBPD that a man had paid\ntheir daughter $300 to give him a massage in his Palm Beach home.6 The PBPD began\ninvestigating Epstein, identified as the recipient of the massage, and two of his personal assistants,\nwho were also implicated by the complainant. The investigation soon expanded beyond the initial\nclaim, to encompass allegations that during 2004 and 2005, Epstein, through his female assistants\n\n6\n\nAs previously noted, \"girls\" refers to females under the age of 18. Epstein's contacts with girls and young\nwomen previously had come to the atten\n... [truncated, 2904 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/36 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=36]", "char_count": 2904}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 37, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 38 of 348\n\nTimeline of Key Events for Federal Epstein Investigation — May 2006 through October 2008\nMay 23 Villalmia opens\nfederal investigation into\nJeffrey Epstein\n\nSept 12 - Lotirie. Villafatia [*others]\nmeet with Epsteurs counsel and the\nState Attorney's Office to discuss\nstate-based resolution\n\nJuly le - Hata&\nfirst briefing to\nAcosta and Mom=\nOct 2 - Sloman becomes\nFirst Assistant United\nStates Attorney: MenchtI\nbecomes Criminal Chief\n\nNn\n\nI\n\nJun\n\nJet\n\nI\n\nAve D\n\nW\n\n-May19—Epstein's counsel sends\nletter to Deputy Attorney General's\nOffice requesting review\n\nSept 7 — Mos Sea VOWS\n[aothers] mid withEnact% camel\n\nI\n\nOre\n\nI\n\nArt\n\nIkt\n\nJo\n\nJune 23 • Deputy Attorney\nGeneral's Office scads letter\nto Epstein's counsel\ndeclining to intervene\n\nSept 24 NPA is signed. Loupe\nleaves USA() for position in\nDOI Criminal Division\n\nI\n\nIS\n\nI\n\nMar I\n\nApr I\n\nMay I\n\nPa\n\n2006\n\nI\n\nAll\n\nOtt\n\nJo\n\nI\n\nIS\n\nJune 30 - Epstein pleads\nguilty in state coon and is\nsentenced\n\nMsr I\n\nApr\n\nI\n\n2007\n\nMs, I\n\nin\n\nI\n\nfl u\n\n2008\n\nMay I Villain&\ncompletes draft\nanon memorandum\nPt\n\nOct 12 - Acosta has\nbreakfast meeting\nwith Lellowite\n\nlune 26 Sloman, Menchel.\nLaurie, Villafaha, and FBI meet\nwith Epstein's counsel\n\nJuly' Jane Doe filec an\nemergency odium against\nthe I :lured States asserting\nviolations of the CVRA\n\nOct 29'30 NPA\nAddendum signed\nFeb 25-29 - DOJ\nCriminal DivisionTEOS\nbegins review\n\nJuly 26 - Villafaha learns from Menchel\nthat Acosta decided to offer Epstein a\ntwo-year state-based resolution\n\nOct I0 Epstein\nbegins work\nrelease program\n\nMay 15 Criminal Division letter\nto Epstein's counsel supporting\nfederal Epstein prosecution\n\nJuly 31 Stoma, Menebel,\nand Fill agents meet with Epstein's counsel to\npropose two-year sate-based resolution\nAug 3 - Mitchel's Int day at USAO; sends\nletter to Epstein's counsel reiterating ttl ins\n\n12\n\nEFTA02830813\n\n", "char_count": 1905}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 38, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 39 of 348\n\nand some of the victims as well, regularly recruited local high-school-age girls to give him\nmassages in his home that, in some cases, led to sexual activity.\nThrough their interviews with victims, the police learned more about Epstein's conduct.\nSome girls had only one encounter with Epstein, while others had many encounters with him. The\nnature of the massages varied. According to victims, some girls remained fully clothed while they\nmassaged Epstein, some wore only their underwear, and some were fully nude. Victims stated\nthat during these massages, Epstein masturbated himself. Some victims alleged that he touched\nthem during the massage, usually fondling their breasts or touching their vaginas directly or\nthrough their clothing. Some victims reported that Epstein used a vibrator to masturbate them, and\nsome stated that he digitally penetrated them. Some victims who stated that they saw him more\noften alleged that Epstein engaged in oral and vaginal sex with them. According to one victim, an\nEpstein female assistant participated, on at least one occasion, in sexual activity with the victim at\nEpstein's direction.'\nAlthough the allegations varied in the specific details, for the most part they were consistent\nin describing a general pattern of conduct by Epstein and several of his assistants. According to\nthe information provided to, and evidence gathered by, the PBPD, Epstein's assistants scheduled\nup to three massage appointments each day, often contacting the girls to make an appointment\nwhile Epstein was en route to Palm Beach from one of his other residences. Sally, when a girl\narrived at Epstein's home for a massage, she was taken upstairs to the\nbedroom and\nbathroom area by one of Epstein's assistants, who set up a massage table and massage oils. When\nthe assistant left the room, Epstein entered, wearing only a robe or a towel. After removing his\nclothing, Epstein lay face down and nude\n... [truncated, 3903 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/38 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=38]", "char_count": 3903}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 39, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 40 of 348\n\nthey found computer monitors and keyboards in the home, as well as disconnected surveillance\ncameras, but the computer equipment itself—including video recordings and other electronic\nstorage media—were gone. Nonetheless, the PBPD retrieved some evidence from Epstein's home,\nincluding notepads on which Epstein's assistants documented messages from many girls over a\ntwo-year span returning phone calls to confirm appointments. The police also found numerous\nphotographs ofnaked young females of indeterminate age. Police photographs taken ofthe interior\nof\ntein's home corroborated the victims' descriptions to police of the layout of the home and\nbedroom and bathroom area. The police also found massage tables and oils, one victim's\nhigh school transcript, and items the police believed to be sex toys.\nB.\n\nThe State Attorney's Office Decides to Present the Case to a State Grand Jury\n\nState Attorney Barry Krischer explained to OPR that the Epstein case was unusual in that\npolice brought the case to his office without having made an arrest. Krischer was unfamiliar with\nEpstein, and the case was assigned to the Crimes Against Children Unit. PBPD Chief Michael\nReiter stated in a 2009 civil deposition that when the PBPD initially brought the case to the State\nAttorney's Office in 2005, Krischer was supportive of the investigation and told Reiter, \"Let's go\nfor it,\" because, given the nature of the allegations, Epstein was \"somebody we have to stop.\"\nKrischer told OPR, however, that both the detectives and the prosecutors came to recognize that\n\"there were witness problems.\"\nAssistant State Attorney and Crimes Against Children Unit Chief Lanna Belohlavek told\nOPR that she and an experienced Assistant State Attorney who initially worked with her on the\ncase \"were at a disagreement\" with the PBPD \"over what the state . . . could ethically charge.\"\nAccording to Belohlavek, she did not believe the evidence the p\n... [truncated, 3800 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/39 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=39]", "char_count": 3800}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 40, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 41 of 348\n\ntold OPR that Epstein's local counsel brought attorney Alan Dershowitz to see Krischer and the\nAssistant State Attorney, but Dershowitz was \"overly aggressive\" and threatened, \"We're going\nto destroy your witnesses; don't go to court because we're going to destroy those girls.\" According\nto Krischer, Dershowitz so \"tainted the waters\" that Epstein also hired local attorney Jack\nGoldberger, with whom Krischer had \"a working relationship.\" Because the husband of the\nAssistant State Attorney was Goldberger's law partner, Belohlavek recused the Assistant State\nAttorney to remove \"even the appearance of any kind of conflict\" of interest, and Belohlavek took\nover the case. Goldberger, together with Gerald Lefcourt, a nationally known New York criminal\ndefense attorney also representing Epstein, then directed their efforts at Belohlavek and Krischer\nto dissuade the office from prosecuting Epstein, largely by attacking the credibility of the victim\nwitnesses.\nMeanwhile, the State Attorney's Office took the unusual step of preparing to present the\ncase to a grand jury. Krischer told OPR that under state law as it existed until changed in 2016,\nhis office prosecuted minors as young as 14 for prostitution.10 The possibility that Epstein's\nvictims themselves could have been prosecuted caused \"great consternation within the office,\" and\naccording to Krischer, resulted in the decision to put the case before the grand jury.\" Belohlavek\ntold OPR that her office took the allegations against Epstein \"seriously, because . . . it was an\norganized scheme to involve young girls by offering them money. And I wouldn't say that we ...\nthought they were prostitutes ... [but] I think there was solicitation.\" However, she said, although\nEpstein's \"behavior was reprehensible, . I'm limited by . . . the state statutes as to what I can\ncharge.\" Krischer told OPR, \"There were so many issues involving the victim-witnesses that \n... [truncated, 3768 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/40 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=40]", "char_count": 3768}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 41, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 42 of 348\n\nother things, prohibit anyone from being present while grand jurors deliberate and vote, and\nproscribe the release of the notes, records, and transcripts of a grand jury.15\nD.\n\nPBPD Chief Reiter Becomes Concerned with the State Attorney's Office's\nHandling of the State Investigation and Seeks a Federal Investigation\n\nIn 2006, PBPD Chief Reiter perceived that Krischer's attitude had changed and, according\nto Reiter's statements in his 2009 deposition, Krischer said that he did not believe the victims were\ncredible. Reiter was disturbed when Krischer suggested that the PBPD issue a notice for Epstein\nto appear in court on misdemeanor charges, leading Reiter to begin questioning Krischer's\nobjectivity and the State Attorney's Office's approach to the case. As Reiter explained in his\ndeposition:\nThis was a case that I felt absolutely needed the attention of the State\nAttorney's Office, that needed to be prosecuted in state court. It's\nnot generally something that's prosecuted in a federal court. And I\nknew that it didn't really matter what the facts were in this case, it\nwas pretty clear to me that Mr. Krischer did not want to prosecute\nthis case.\nOn May I, 2006, Reiter submitted to Krischer probable cause affidavits and a case filing\npackage relating to Epstein, one of his personal assistants, and a young local woman whom Epstein\nfirst victimized and then used to recruit other girls. In his transmittal letter, which was later made\npublic, Reiter criticized Krischer, noting that he found the State Attorney's Office's \"treatment of\nthese cases [to be] highly unusual.\"I6 Reiter urged Krischer \"to examine the unusual course that\nyour office's handling of this matter has taken\" and to consider disqualifying himself from\nprosecuting Epstein.\"\nIII.\n\nTHE FBI AND THE USAO INVESTIGATE EPSTEIN, AND THE DEFENSE\nTEAM ENGAGES WITH THE USAO\nA.\n\nMay 2006 — February 2007: The Federal Investigation Is Initiated, and\n... [truncated, 2964 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/41 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=41]", "char_count": 2964}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 42, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 43 of 348\n\ncharge. Villafafia suggested meeting with the PBPD, but the case agent explained that before\nformally presenting the case to the FBI, the PBPD wanted to see how the State Attorney's Office\ndecided to charge Epstein.\n1.\n\nThe PBPD Presents the Matter to the FBI and the USAO\n\nIn May 2006, the lead Detective handling the state's investigation met with Villafafia and\nthe FBI case agent to summarize for them the information learned during the state's\ninvestigation.18 At the time, neither Villafafia nor the case agent had heard of Epstein or had any\nknowledge of his background.\nAccording to Villafafia, during this meeting, the Detective expressed concern that \"pressure\nhad been brought to bear on . . . Krischer by Epstein's attorneys,\" and he and Chief Reiter were\nconcerned the state would charge Epstein with only a misdemeanor or not at all.19 The Detective\nexplained that the defense had hired private investigators to trail Reiter and the Detective, had\nraised claims of various improprieties by the police, and, in the view of the PBPD, had orchestrated\nthe removal of the Assistant State Attorney initially assigned to handle the matter, who was viewed\nas an aggressive prosecutor, by hiring a defense attorney whose relationship with the Assistant\nState Attorney created a conflict of interest for the prosecutor. Further, given the missing computer\nequipment and surveillance camera videotapes, the Detective believed Epstein may have been\n\"tipped off\" in advance about the search warrant.\nDuring the meeting, Villafafia reviewed the U.S. Code to see what federal charges could\nbe brought against Epstein. She focused on 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 (enticement of minors into\nprostitution or other illegal sexual activity and use of a facility of interstate or foreign commerce\nto persuade or induce a minor to engage in prostitution or other illegal sexual activity) and 2423\n(travel for purposes of engaging in illegal sexua\n... [truncated, 3488 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/42 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=42]", "char_count": 3488}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 43, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\n2.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 44 of 348\n\nMay 2006: The USAO Accepts the Case and Opens a Case File\n\nOn May 23, 2006, Villafafia prepared the paperwork to open a USAO case file. Villafafia\ntold OPR that several aspects of the case implicated federal interests and potentially merited a\nfederal prosecution: (I) the victimization of minors through the use of facilities of interstate\ncommerce (the telephone and airports); (2) the number of victims involved; (3) the possibility that\nEpstein had been producing or possessing child pornography (suggested by the removal of the\ncomputer equipment from his residence); and (4) the possibility that improper political pressure\nhad affected the State Attorney Office's handling of the case. The investigation was named\n\"Operation Leap Year\" because the state investigation had identified approximately 29 girls as\nvictims of Epstein's conduct.20\nVillafaiia told OPR that from the outset of the federal investigation, she understood that\nthe case would require a great deal of time and effort given the number of potential victims and\nEpstein's financial resources. Nonetheless, Villafafia was willing to put in the effort and believed\nthat the FBI was similarly committed to the case. Villafafia discussed the case with her immediate\nsupervisor, who also \"thought it would be a good case\" and approved it to be opened within the\nUSAO's file management system, and on May 23, 2006, it was formally initiated.\n3.\n\nJuly 14, 2006: Villafana Informs Acosta and Sloman about the Case\n\nBecause Villafafia was not familiar with Epstein, she researched his background and\nlearned that he \"took a scorched earth approach\" to litigation. Villafafia was aware that Epstein\nhad hired multiple lawyers to interact with the State Attorney's Office in an effort to derail the\nstate case, and she believed he would likely do the same in connection with any federal\ninvestigation.\nTherefore, Villafafia arranged to meet with U.S. Attorney A\n... [truncated, 3607 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/43 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=43]", "char_count": 3607}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 44, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 45 of 348\n\nEpstein massages that were sexual in nature, and that Epstein had used \"various types of pressure\"\nto avoid prosecution by the state, including hiring attorneys who had personal connections to the\nState Attorney. Villafafia said that part of her goal in speaking to Acosta and Sloman at the outset\nof the federal investigation was to sensitize them to the tactics Epstein's legal team would likely\nemploy. Villafafia explained, \"When you have a case that you know people are going to be getting\ncalls about . . . you just want to make sure that they know about it so they don't get ... a call from\nout of the blue.\" According to Villafafia, she told Acosta and Sloman that the FBI was willing to\nput the necessary resources into the case, and she was willing to put in the time, but she \"didn't\nwant to get to the end and have [the] same situation occur\" with a federal prosecution as had\noccurred with the state. She told OPR, \"I remember specifically saying to them that I expected\nthe case would be time and resource-intensive and I did not want to invest the time and the FBI's\nresources if the Office would just back down to pressure at the end.\" According to Villafafia,\nAcosta and Sloman promised that \"if the evidence is there, we will prosecute the case.\" In a later\nemail to Lourie and her immediate supervisor, Villafaila recounted that she spoke with Acosta and\nSloman because she \"knew that what has happened to the state prosecution can happen to a federal\nprosecution if the U.S. Attorney isn't on board,\" but Acosta and Sloman had given her \"the\nlight\" to go forward with the Epstein investigation.\nBoth Acosta and Sloman told OPR that they did not recall the July 2006 meeting with\nVillafafia. Each told OPR that at the time the federal investigation was initiated, he had not\npreviously heard of Epstein.22\nAcosta told OPR that he understood from the outset that the case involved a wealthy man\nwho was \"doing \n... [truncated, 3780 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/44 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=44]", "char_count": 3780}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 45, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\n4.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 46 of 348\n\nLate July 2006: The State Indicts Epstein, and the USAO Moves\nForward with a Federal Investigation\n\nSeveral days after Villafatia spoke with Acosta and Sloman, on July 19, 2006, Assistant\nState Attorney Belohlavek presented the case to the state grand jury.23 Krischer told OPR that\n\"the whole thing\" was put before the grand jury. According to a statement made at the time by the\nState Attorney's Office spokesman, the grand jury was presented with a list of charges from highest\nto lowest, without a recommendation by the prosecutor, and deliberated with the prosecutor out of\nthe room.24 The state grand jury returned an indictment charging Epstein with one count of felony\nsolicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07, a felony under state law because\nit alleged three or more instances of solicitation.25 The indictment did not identify the person or\npersons solicited and made no mention of the fact that Epstein had solicited minors.26 On July 23,\n2006, Epstein self-surrendered to be arrested on the indictment, but was not detained, and the\ncharges were made public.\nVillafafta told OPR that she decided to move forward with the federal investigation at that\npoint because she believed the State Attorney's Office would permit Epstein to enter a plea to a\nreduced misdemeanor charge and that once he entered a guilty plea, the Department's Petite policy\nmight preclude a federal prosecution.27 Villafafta told OPR that at the time, she \"definitely\nbelieved that we were going to proceed to [a federal] indictment, assuming that . . . we had\nsufficient evidence.\"\n\nVillafafia and the FBI obtained and examined records of the state grand jury proceeding, and Lourie reviewed\nthem. Because the grand jury records have not been ordered released publicly, OPR does not discuss their substance\nin this Report.\n24\n\nLarry =,\n\"Police say lawyer tried to discredit teenage girls,\" Palm Beach Post, J\n... [truncated, 3980 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/45 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=45]", "char_count": 3980}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 46, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 47 of 348\n\nOn July 24, 2006, Villafafia alerted Sloman, who informed Acosta, that the State Attorney's\nOffice had charged and arrested Epstein.28 On that same day, the FBI in West Palm Beach formally\nopened the case, assigning the case agent and, later, a co-case agent, to investigate it. Villafafia\ntold Sloman that the FBI agents \"are getting copies of all of the evidence and we are going to\nreview everything at [the] FBI on Wednesday,\" and she noted that her target date for filing federal\ncharges against Epstein was August 25, 2006. Acosta emailed Sloman, asking whether it was\n\"appropriate to approach [State Attorney Krischer] and give him a heads up re where we might\ngo?\" Sloman replied, \"No for fear that it will be leaked straight to Epstein.\"\"\nAlthough Lourie learned of the case at this point from Sloman, and eventually took a more\nactive role in supervising the investigation, Villafafia continued to update Acosta and Sloman\ndirectly on the progress of the case.30 Villafalia's immediate supervisor in West Palm Beach had\nlittle involvement in supervising the Epstein investigation, and at times, Villafafia directed her\nemails to Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie without copying her immediate supervisor. In the\nimmediate supervisor's view, however, \"Miami\" purposefully assumed all the \"authority\" for the\ncase, which the immediate supervisor regarded as \"highly unusual.\"31\nBy late August 2006, Villafafia and the FBI had identified several additional victims and\nobtained \"some flight manifests, telephone messages, and cell phone records that show the\ncommunication and travel in interstate commerce\" by Epstein and his associates. Villafafia\nreported to her supervisors that the State Attorney's Office would not provide transcripts from the\nstate grand jury voluntarily, and that she would be meeting with Chief Reiter \"to convince him to\nrelinquish the evidence to the FBI.\" Villafafia also told her supervisors that \n... [truncated, 4023 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/46 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=46]", "char_count": 4023}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 47, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 48 of 348\n\nalso informed Sloman and Lourie that the FBI was re-interviewing victims who had given taped\nstatements to the PBPD, to ensure their stories \"have not changed,\" and that \"[a]ny discrepancies\nwill be noted and considered.\" She conceded that \"[g]etting them to tell their stories in front of a\njury at trial may be much harder,\" but expressed confidence that the two key victims \"will stay the\ncourse.\" She acknowledged that the case \"needs to be rock solid.\"\nThe case agent told OPR that in this initial stage of the investigation, the FBI \"partnered\nup very well\" with the USAO. She recalled that there was little higher-level management oversight\neither from the FBI or the USAO, and \"we were allowed to do what we needed to do to get our\njob done.\" This included continuing to identify, locate, and interview victims and Epstein\nemployees, and obtaining records relating to Epstein's travel, communications, and financial\ntransactions. The case agent viewed the case as \"strong.\"\n5.\n\nOctober 2006 — February 2007: Epstein's Defense Counsel Initiate\nContact with Villafana, Lourie, and Sloman, and Press for a Meeting\n\nJust as Epstein had learned of the PBPD investigation at its early stage, he quickly became\naware of the federal investigation, both because the FBI was interviewing his employees and\nbecause the government was seeking records from his businesses. One of Epstein's New York\nattorneys, Gerald Lefcourt, made initial contact with Villafafia in August 2006. As the\ninvestigation progressed, Epstein took steps to persuade the USAO to decline federal\nprosecution.32 As with the state investigation, Epstein employed attorneys who had experience\nwith the Department and relationships with individual USAO personnel.33 One of Epstein's\nMiami lawyers, Guy =,\na former career AUSA and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of\nFlorida, made an overture on Epstein's behalf in early November 2006.34\ntelephoned\nVilla\n... [truncated, 3919 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/47 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=47]", "char_count": 3919}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 48, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 49 of 348\n\n\"'anything' she wanted\" without the necessity of legal process.\nasked to meet with Villafafia\nand Sloman to discuss the Epstein investigation, but Villafafia declined.\nShortly thereafter, Lilly Ann\na former AUSA, contacted Sloman and advised him\nthat she also represented Epstein.\nwas employed by the USA'S, from 2000 to September\n2005 and had been a Deputy Chief of the USAO's Major Crimes section at the time Menchel was\nthe Chief. According to Sloman's contemporaneous email recounting the conversation, when\nindicated to him that his participation in\ncall with Villafafia led the defense team\nto believe that the matter had been \"elevated\" within the USAO, Sloman tried to \"disabuse\" her of\nthat notion.\nsaid that Epstein \"wanted to be as transparent and cooperative as possible\"\nin working with the USAO. Despite the fact that\nhad already made contact with the USAO\nsent a letter to Villafafia on November 15, 2006, in which she asserted\non Epstein's behalf,\nthat she and Gerald Lefcourt were representing Epstein and asked that the USAO direct all contact\nor communications about Epstein to them. In response, Villafafia requested that the defense\nprovide documents and information pertinent to the federal investigation, including the documents\nand information that Epstein had previously provided to the State Attorney's Office, and\n\"computers, hard drives, CPUs [computer processing units], and any other computer media\"\nremoved from Sa's\nhome before the PBPD executed its search warrant in October 2005. In\ncontacted Villafafia to schedule a meeting, but Villafana td\nie that\nJanuary 2007,\nwanted to receive and review the documents before scheduling a meeting with\nImmediately after receiving Villafafia's response,\nbypassed Villafafia and phoned\nLourie, with whom she had worked when she was an AUSA, to press for a\nLaurie agreed\nto meet with\nand Lefcourt. Lourie explained to Villafana that\nwas concerned\nthat feder\n... [truncated, 3982 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/48 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=48]", "char_count": 3982}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 49, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 50 of 348\n\ndisagreed with her position. Villafafia and a West Palm Beach AUSA with whom she was\nconsulting about the investigation, and who served for a time as her co-counsel, both recalled\nmeeting with Lourie in his office to express their concerns about meeting with defense counsel.\nThey perceived Lourie to be dismissive of their views.35 According to Villafafia, Lourie believed\nthat a meeting with the defense attorneys would be the USAO's chance to learn the defense's legal\ntheories and would position the USAO to arrange a debriefing of Epstein, through which the USAO\nmight learn information helpful to a prosecution. Villafafia told OPR, however, that while this\nstrategy might make sense in a =collar crime case, she did not believe it was appropriate or\nworthwhile in a child exploitation case, in which the perpetrator would be unlikely to confess to\nthe conduct. Villafafia also told OPR that she did not believe the USAO could extract information\nabout the defense legal theories without telling the defense the precise crimes the USAO intended\nto charge, which Villafafia did not want to reveal.\n6.\n\nFebruary 2007: Defense Counsel Meet with Lourie and Villafafia and\nPresent the Defense Objections to a Federal Case\n\nAt the February I, 2007 meeting with Lourie and Villafafia,\nand Lefcourt set out\narguments that would be repeated throughout the months-long defense campaign to stop the federal\ninvestigation. In support of their arguments, the defense attorneys provided a 25-page letter, along\nwith documents the defense had obtained from the state's investigative file and potential\nimpeachment material the defense had developed relating to the victims.\nIn the letter and at the meeting, defense counsel argued that (I) the allegations did not\nprovide a basis for the exercise of federal jurisdiction; (2) the evidence did not establish that\nEpstein knew girls who provided him with massages were minors; (3) no evide\n... [truncated, 3720 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/49 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=49]", "char_count": 3720}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 50, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 51 of 348\n\nof the state's victim interviews and partial transcripts provided by defense counsel.36 Villafafia\nalso pursued other investigative steps, which included working with the FBI to locate an expert\nwitness to testify about the effect of sexual abuse on victims. She also continued collecting records\nrelating to Epstein's business entities, in part to help establish the interstate nexus of Epstein's\nactivity. On several occasions, Villafafia sought guidance from CEOS, which had considerable\nnational expertise in child exploitation cases, about legal issues relating to the case, such as\nwhether charges she was considering required proof that the defendant knew a minor victim's age.\nUSAO procedures generally required that a proposed indictment be accompanied by a\nprosecution memorandum from the AUSA handling the case. The prosecution memorandum was\nexpected to explain the factual and legal bases for the proposed charges and address any significant\nprocedural, factual, and legal issues of which the AUSA was aware; witness-related issues;\nexpected defenses; and sentencing issues. Routine prosecutions could be approved by lower-level\nsupervisors, but in high-profile or complex cases, proposed indictments might require review and\napproval by the Criminal Division Chief, the FAUSA, or even the U.S. Attorney.\nAccordingly, Villafafia drafted an 82-page prosecution memorandum directed to Acosta,\nSloman, Menchel (who had replaced Sloman as the USAO's Criminal Division Chief the previous\nOctober, when Sloman became the FAUSA), Lourie, and her immediate supervisor, dated May I,\n2007, supporting a proposed 60-count indictment that charged Epstein with various federal crimes\nrelating to sexual conduct with and trafficking of minors. The prosecution memorandum set forth\nlegal issues and potential defenses relating to each proposed charge; explained why certain other\nstatutes were rejected as proposed charges; descri\n... [truncated, 3699 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/50 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=50]", "char_count": 3699}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 51, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 52 of 348\n\nforward with charges in this case. Lourie forwarded a copy of the prosecution memorandum to\nMenchel. Lourie's transmittal message read:\ndid a 50 [sic] page pros memo in the Epstein case. I am going\nto start reading it tonight.... It's a major case because the target is\none of the richest men in the country and it has been big news. He\nhas a stable of attorneys, incliilliershowitz, [Roy] Black,\nLefcourt, in\nand Lily [sic]\n. Jeff Sloman is familiar\nwith the investigation. The state intentionally torpedoed it in the\ngrand jury so it was brought to us. I am going to forward the pros\nmemo to you so you can start reading it at the same time I do. The\nFBI is pushing to do it in Mid [sic] May, which I think is not critical,\nbut we might as well get a jump on it. I have some ideas about the\nindictment (needs to be ultra lean with only clean victims), so I am\nnot sending that yet.\nLourie explained to OPR that by \"clean\" victims, he meant those for whom the defense did not\nhave impeachment evidence to use against them.\nA few days later, Lourie emailed Menchel, asking if Menchel had read the prosecution\nmemorandum. Lourie directed Menchel's attention to particular pages of the prosecution\nmemorandum, noting that the \"keys\" were whether the USAO could prove that Epstein traveled\nfor the purpose of engaging in sexual acts, and the fact that some minor victims told Epstein they\nwere 18.37 Lourie asked for Menchel's \"very general opinion as to whether this is a case you think\nthe office should do,\" and reminded Menchel that the State Attorney's Office \"went out of their\nway to get a no-bill on this ... and thus only charged adult solicitation, which they would bargain\naway to nothing.\"\nDuring his OPR interview, Menchel said that Lourie's email transmitting the prosecution\nmemorandum was his \"official introduction\" to the case and at that point in time, he had never\nheard of Epstein and had no information about \n... [truncated, 3485 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/51 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=51]", "char_count": 3485}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 52, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 53 of 348\n\nrecalled generally having conversations with Sloman and Menchel about the Epstein case, but he\ncould not recall with specificity when those conversations took place or the details of the\ndiscussions.\nSloman told OPR that because of his broad responsibilities as FAUSA, he left it to\nMenchel, as a highly experienced trial attorney and the Criminal Division Chief, to work directly\nwith Acosta, and Sloman recalled that it was Menchel and Lourie who conducted a \"granular\nreview\" of the charging package. Acosta confirmed to OPR that Sloman and Menchel \"were a\nteam\" who became involved in issues as needed, and if Sloman perceived that Menchel was taking\nthe lead on the Epstein matter, Sloman may have deferred to Menchel.\nC.\n\nMay — June 2007: Miami Managers Consider the Prosecution Memorandum\nand Proposed Charges\n\nWhen she submitted the prosecution memorandum, Villafafia intended to file charges by\nMay 15, 2007, and the FBI planned to arrest Epstein immediately thereafter. Villafafia, however,\nhad not obtained authorization to indict on that schedule. The managers in Miami wanted time to\nanalyze the lengthy prosecution memorandum and consider the potential charges and charging\nstrategy. Just a few days after he received the prosecution memorandum, and after learning that\nthe FBI was planning a press conference for May 15, Sloman advised Villafafia that \"[t]his Office\nhas not approved the indictment. Therefore, please do not commit us to anything at this time.\"39\nOn May 10, 2007, with Menchel's concurrence, Lourie sent a copy of Villafafta's\nprosecution memorandum to CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan, who in turn sent it to his deputy\nand another CEOS attorney, asking them to assess the legal issues involved in the case and\ndescribing it as a \"highly sensitive\" case involving \"a high profile, very rich defendant.\"39 After\nCEOS reviewed the materials, Oosterbaan responded to Lourie with an email stating that t\n... [truncated, 3717 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/52 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=52]", "char_count": 3717}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 53, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 54 of 348\n\nthe FBI squad supervisor on May 9, 2007, to explain that charges against Epstein would not be\nquickly approved, he reported to Menchel that the FBI was \"not happy\" about the delay, adding,\n\"I did not even tell them I think we should bring [Epstein] in, once we decide to charge him, and\noffer a pre-indictment deal, figuring a judge might never agree to such a deal post indictment. That\nwould have sent them thru the roof.\" Lourie explained to OPR that he thought a judge, after seeing\nan indictment charging the full nature and scope of Epstein's conduct, might not agree to a plea\ninvolving substantially less time or to dismiss substantive charges.41\nLourie told OPR that despite Oosterbaan's favorable opinion of the case, \"[t]his was . . . a\nbit of uncharted territory,\" involving facts that were unlike the case law Oosterbaan had cited.\nAlthough Lourie had some concerns about the legal issues and about the witnesses, he \"probably\"\ndid not see any impediment to going forward with the case; in fact, Lourie \"was not in favor of\nwalking away, which is what the defense wanted [the USAO] to do.\" But while Lourie \"thought\nwe could have won and we could have prevailed through appeal,\" he \"didn't think the odds were\nnearly as good as you want in a criminal case, and . . . the things that we had to gain [through a\nplea agreement] were much more than [in] a normal criminal case,\" in which the only cost of a\nloss would be that the defendant did not go to jail. Lourie told OPR that to the best of his\nrecollection, he thought a plea agreement would be a good result, and although the government\nmight have to \"give up some jail time,\" there were other benefits to a plea, such as the ability to\nrequire Epstein to register as a sex offender and the availability of monetary damages for the\nvictims. Lourie recalled \"thinking that this case should settle and we should set it up so we can\nsettle it\" by, for example, char\n... [truncated, 3535 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/53 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=53]", "char_count": 3535}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 54, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 55 of 348\n\nLonde followed up his email to Villafafia with one to Menchel, in which Lourie reiterated\nthe potential benefits of a pre-indictment plea, explaining that he and Villafafia believed \"the best\nthing to do is charge Epstein by complaint, assuming we decide to charge him. . . . The\n[sentencing] guidelines will be in the 20 year range, so we would need to plead him to one or two\nconspiracies to cap him and there is no telling if a judge would go for that once we indict.\"43\nMenchel responded that he and Acosta would read the prosecution memorandum and \"[w]e can\ndiscuss after that.\"\nLater that afternoon, Villafafia sent Lourie an email, which Lourie forwarded to Menchel,\nexplaining that a \"conservative calculation\" of Epstein's potential sentencing exposure under the\nU.S. Sentencing Guidelines would be 168 to 210 months, and that in her view, the facts warranted\nan upward departure from that range. Villafafia told OPR that although Lourie proposed some\nchanges to the draft indictment, at that point no one had told her that the evidence was insufficient\nto support the proposed charges or that the office did not want to go forward with the case.\nIn an email to Acosta and Menchel on May 11, 2007, Lourie recommended charging\nEpstein by complaint and seeking a pre-indictment plea:\nMy current thoughts are that we should charge him. Not sure that I\nagree with the charging strategy as it is now, but at this point I think\nwe only need to get on the same page as to whether the statutes cover\nthe conduct and whether the conduct is the type we should charge.\nI think the answer to both is yes, although there is some risk on some\nof the statutes as this is uncharted territory to some degree. We can\ndecide later what the [charging document] should look like precisely\nand which victims should be charged.\nI also think if we choose to go forward, we should start with a\ncomplaint, arrest him, detain him . . . and then t\n... [truncated, 3277 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/54 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=54]", "char_count": 3277}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 55, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 56 of 348\n\nhe is comfortable before proceeding.\" Menchel told Villafafia he had \"trouble understanding\" why\nshe was in a \"rush\" \"given how long this case has been pending.\"44\nOPR questioned Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta about the timeline for reviewing\nthe prosecution memorandum and the proposed charges. Acosta and Menchel believed Villafafia's\ntimeline was unrealistic from the start. Acosta told OPR that Villafafia was \"very hard charging,\"\nbut her timeline for filing charges in the case was \"really, really fast.\" Menchel described Villafafia\nas \"out over her skis a little bit\" and \"ahead of Acosta in terms of his analysis of the case.45\nMenchel said it was clear to him that Acosta \"was going to be the one making the call\" about\nwhether to go forward with charges, and Acosta needed more time to make a decision. Menchel\ntold OPR, \"This [was] not a case [we were] going to review in two weeks and make a decision\non.\" Sloman told OPR that although he did not conduct a \"granular review\" of the proposed\ncharges, he believed Menchel and Lourie had done so and \"obviously\" had concluded that \"the\nfacts and the law didn't suggest that the right thing to do was to automatically indict.\" Lourie told\nOPR that he believed \"the case was moving ahead.\"\nVillafafia continued to seek direction from her managers. On May 15, 2007, she emailed\nSloman, noting that \"[i]t seemed from our discussion yesterday that pestering Alex [Acosta] will\nnot do any good. Am I right about that?\" Sloman responded, \"Yes.\" On May 21, 2007, three\nweeks after submitting the prosecution memorandum, Villafaita emailed Sloman and Menchel\nasking for \"a sense of the direction where we are headed—i.e., approval of an indictment something\nlike the current draft, a complaint to allow for pre-indictment negotiations, an indictment\ndrastically different from the current draft?\" Sloman responded only, \"Taken care of.\"46\nD.\n\nDefense Counsel Seek a Meetin\n... [truncated, 4028 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/55 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=55]", "char_count": 4028}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 56, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 57 of 348\n\nwe are contemplating so Dershowitz can tell us why they don't apply.s47 Lourie told Menchel, \"I\ndon't see the downside,\" but added, '=\nis against it.\" Menchel responded that it was\n\"premature\" to provide the information. During his OPR interview, Menchel could not specifically\nrecall why he believed it was \"premature\" to provide the defense with the requested information,\nbut speculated that it was too soon after the prosecution memorandum had been circulated for\nAcosta to have made a decision about how he wanted to proceed. This recollection is consistent\nwith the May 2007 emails reflecting that Acosta wanted time to consider the proposed prosecution.\nOn May 22, 2007, defense counsel Lefcourt emailed Lourie a letter to \"confirm\" that\nEpstein's attorneys would be given an opportunity to meet with Lourie before the USAO reached\na final decision on charging Epstein. Lourie forwarded the letter to Menchel and Sloman, but\nnoted that Epstein's defense team was \"really ready for the next level,\" rather than another meeting\nwith him. Lourie suggested that Menchel meet with defense counsel, adding, \"Whether Alex\nwould be present or grant them another meeting after that is his call.\" Lourie also emailed\nLefcourt, clarifying that Lourie had not promised to call Epstein's counsel before filing charges,\nand suggesting that Epstein's counsel make their next presentation to Menchel.\nAlthough Lourie's emails show that he had no objection to more senior USAO managers\nmeeting with defense counsel, Villafaria opposed such a meeting. Several emails indicate that\nMenchel traveled to West Palm Beach to meet with Lourie and Villafaila on the afternoon of\nMay 23, 2007.48 On that same date, Villafafta drafted an email, which she planned to send to\nSloman and Menchel, expressing her disagreement with meeting with defense counsel. Although\nthe email was written for Sloman and Menchel, Villafaila sent it as a draft only t\n... [truncated, 3456 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/56 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=56]", "char_count": 3456}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 57, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 58 of 348\n\nopposition to these meetings, but we are simply looking at this case\nas a violent crime prosecution involving stiffpenalties rather than as\na\ncollar or public corruption case where the parties can\namicably work out a light sentence.49\nWith respect to the \"policy reasons\" that Lefcourt wants to discuss,\nthose were already raised in his letter (which is part ofthe indictment\npackage) and during his meeting with Andy and myself. Those\nreasons are: (1) he wants the Petit [sic] policy to trump our ability\nto prosecute Epstein, (2) this shouldn't be a federal offense, and\n(3) the victims were willing participants so the crime shouldn't be\nprosecuted at all. Unless the Office thinks that any of those\narguments will be persuasive, a meeting will not be beneficial to the\nprosecution, it will only benefit the defense. With respect to\nLefcourt's promised legal analysis, that also has already been\nprovided. The only way to get additional analysis is to expose to the\ndefense the other charges that we are considering. In my opinion\nthis would seriously undermine the prosecution.\nThe defense is anxious to have a meeting in order to delay the\ninvestigation/prosecution, to find out more about our investigation,\nand to use political pressure to stop the investigation.\nI have no control over the Office's decisions regarding whether to\nmeet with the defense or to whom the facts and analysis of the case\nwill be disclosed. However, if you all do decide to go forward with\nthese meetings in a way that is detrimental to the investigation, then\nI will have to ask to have the case reassigned to an AUSA who is in\nagreement with the handling of the case.\nAfter receiving this draft, the immediate supervisor cautioned Villafafia, \"Let's talk before\nthis is sent, please.\"50 Villafafia told OPR that the supervisor counseled Villafafia not to send the\nemail to Sloman or Menchel because Villafafia could be viewed as insubordinate\n... [truncated, 2981 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/57 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=57]", "char_count": 2981}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 58, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 59 of 348\n\nfor meetings was to cause delay, but \"the people in my office either couldn't see that or didn't\nwant to see that,\" perhaps because of \"their lack of experience with these types of cases\" or a\nmisguided belief \"that [Epstein's] attorneys would not engage in this behavior.\" Villafafia told\nOPR that she \"could not seem to get [her supervisors] to understand the seriousness of Epstein's\nbehavior and the fact that he was probably continuing to commit the behavior, and that there was\na need to move with necessary speed.\" Nonetheless, Villafaiia followed the guidance of her\nimmediate supervisor and did not send the email.\nLike Lourie, Menchel told OPR that he believed meeting with defense counsel was good\npractice. Menchel told OPR that he saw \"no downside\" to hearing the defense point of view.\nDefense counsel might make a persuasive point \"that's actually going to change our mind,\" or\nalternatively, present arguments the defense would inevitably raise if the case went forward, and\nMenchel believed it would be to the USAO's advantage to learn about such arguments in advance.\nMenchel also told OPR that he did not recall Villafafia ever articulating a concern that Epstein was\ncontinuing to offend, and in Menchel's view, Epstein was \"already under a microscope, at least in\nFlorida,\" and it would have been \"the height of stupidity\" for Epstein to continue to offend in those\ncircumstances.\nE.\n\nJune 2007: Villafafia Supplements the Prosecution Memorandum\n\nWhile Villafaita's supervisors were considering whether to go forward with the proposed\ncharges, Villafafia took additional steps to support them. On June 14, 2007, she supplemented the\nprosecution memorandum with an addendum addressing \"credibility concerns\" relating to one of\nthe victims. In the email transmitting the addendum to Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and her\nimmediate supervisor, Villafafia reported, \"another Jane Doe has been identified and intervie\n... [truncated, 3650 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/58 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=58]", "char_count": 3650}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 59, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 60 of 348\n\nOn that same day, Villafafia emailed Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and her immediate supervisor\ncomplaining that she had received no reply to her query about making changes to the proposed\nindictment and asking again for feedback. During his OPR interview, Lourie observed that\nVillafafia's request for feedback reflected her desire to \"charge this case sooner than ... everybody\nelse,\" but Acosta was still considering what strategy to pursue. Sloman told OPR that he did not\nknow whether Villafafia received any response to her request, but he believed that at that point in\ntime, Menchel and Lourie were evaluating the case to make a decision about how to proceed.\nThe day before the June 26 meeting, defense counsel Lefcourt transmitted to the USAO a\n19-page letter intended to provide \"an overview of our position and the materials we plan to present\nin order to demonstrate that none of the statutes identified by you can rightly be applied to the\nconduct at issue here.\" Reiterating their prior arguments and themes, defense counsel strongly\ncontested the appropriateness of federal involvement in the matter. Among other issues, Lefcourt's\nletter argued:\n•\n\nVoluntary sexual activity involving \"young adults-16 or 17 years of age\"—was\n\"strictly a state concern.\"\n\n•\n\nFederal statutes were not meant to apply to circumstances in which the defendant\nreasonably believed that the person with whom he engaged in sexual activity was\n18 years of age.\n\n•\n\nOne of the chief statutes the USAO had focused upon, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), was\nintended to address use of the intemet to prey upon child victims through \"intemet\ntrolling,\" but Epstein did not use the intemet to lure victims.\n\n•\n\nThe \"travel\" statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), prohibits travel \"for the purpose of\nengaging in illicit sexual conduct, but Epstein traveled to Florida to visit family,\noversee his Florida-based flight operations, and \"engage in the routine activities\n... [truncated, 3273 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/59 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=59]", "char_count": 3273}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 60, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 61 of 348\n\nLourie opined that the government could argue \"that over time [Epstein] set up a network of illegal\nhigh school massage recruits that would be difficult to duplicate anywhere else,\" which supported\nthe conclusion that the massages must have been a motivating purpose of his travel, if not the sole\npurpose. However, Lourie expressed concern about \"getting to the jury\" on this issue and noted\nthat he had not found a legal case factually on point. Villafafia told OPR that she disagreed with\nLourie's analysis of the purpose of travel issue and had discussed the matter with him.53 Villafafia\nalso recalled that there were aspects of the defense submissions she and her colleagues considered\n\"particularly weak.\"\nOn June 26, 2007, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, Villafafia, the case agent, and the West Palm\nBeach squad supervisor met at the Miami USAO with Epstein attorneys Dershowitz, Black,\nLefcourt, and\nDershowitz led the defense team's presentation. From the USAO\nperspective, the meeting was merely a \"listening session.\"54 Echoing the arguments made in\nLefcourt's letter, Dershowitz argued that the USAO should permit the state to handle the case\nbecause these were \"traditionally state offenses.\" The case agent recalled being uncomfortable\nthat the defense was asking questions in an attempt to gain information about the federal\ninvestigation, including the number of victims and the types of sexual contact that had been\ninvolved.\nVillafafia told OPR that when Epstein's attorneys left the meeting, they appeared to be\n\"under the impression that they had convinced us not to proceed.\" But Menchel told OPR, \"[T]hey\nobviously did not persuade\" the USAO because \"we .. . didn't drop the investigation.\" According\nto Villafafia, Lourie, and Menchel, during a short post-meeting discussion at which Lourie\nexpressed concern about the purpose of travel issue and Menchel raised issues related to general\ncredibility of the vic\n... [truncated, 3516 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/60 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=60]", "char_count": 3516}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 61, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 62 of 348\n\ndamages.\" During a two-month period, the subject attorneys were involved to varying degrees in\nconverting the broad outline into specific terms, resulting in the NPA signed by Epstein on\nSeptember 24, 2007. The subjects, including Acosta, were generally able to explain to OPR both\nthe larger goals and the case-related factors they likely considered during the process of\nconceptualizing, negotiating, and finalizing this resolution. However, the contemporaneous emails\nand other records do not reflect all of the conversations among the decision makers, and their\ndeliberative and decision-making process is therefore not entirely clear. In particular, Menchel\nand Acosta had offices located near each other and likely spoke in person about the case, but\nneither had a clear memory of their conversations. Therefore, OPR could not determine all of the\nfacts surrounding the development of the two-year state plea resolution or the NPA.\nIn the following account, OPR discusses the initial key decision to resolve the federal\ninvestigation through state, rather than federal, charges, and sets forth many of the numerous\ncommunications that reflect the negotiations between the parties that led to the final NPA. OPR\nquestioned each of the subjects about how the decision was reached to pursue a state resolution,\nand OPR includes below the subjects' explanations. The subjects' memories of particular\nconversations about this topic were unclear, but from their statements to OPR, a general consensus\nemerged that there were overlapping concerns about the viability of the legal theories, the\nwillingness of the victims to testify, the impact of a trial on the victims, the overall strength of the\ncase that had been developed at that time, and the uncertainty about the USAO's ability to prevail\nat trial and through appeal. In addition, Acosta was concerned about usurping the state's authority\nto prosecute a case involving a\n... [truncated, 4150 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/61 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=61]", "char_count": 4150}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 62, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 63 of 348\n\ninclude concurrent time.\" The email primarily concerned other issues, and Villafafia did not\nexplain what the resolution she had in mind would entail.57 Villafafia requested to be advised,\n\"[i]f anyone has communicated anything to Epstein's attorneys that is contrary to this.\" Villafafia,\nwho was aware that Menchel and Lourie had been in direct contact with defense counsel about the\ncase, explained to OPR that she made this request because \"people were communicating with the\ndefense attorneys,\" and she suspected that those communications may have included discussions\nabout a possible plea.\nIn response to Villafafia's email, Menchel notified Villafafia that he had told\nstate plea [with] jail time and sex offender status may satisfy the [U.S. Attorney],\" but\nhad responded that it \"was a non-starter for them.\"58 During his OPR interview, Menchel had no\nindependent recollection of his conversation with\nand did not remember why the defense\ndeemed the pro sal a `non-starter.\" However, Menchel explained that he would not have made\nthe proposal to\nwithout Acosta's knowledge. He also pointed out that in numerous emails\nbefore the June 26, 2007 meeting, he repeatedly noted that Acosta was still deciding what he\nwanted to do with the Epstein case. Acosta agreed, telling OPR that although he did not remember\na specific conversation with Menchel concerning a state-based resolution, Menchel would not have\ndiscussed a potential resolution with\n\"without having discussed it with me.\"\n1.\n\nAcosta's Explanation for His Decision to Pursue a State-based\nResolution\n\nSubsequent events showed that the decision to resolve the case through state charges was\npivotal, and OPR extensively questioned Acosta about his reasoning. In his OPR interview, Acosta\nexplained the various factors that influenced his decision to pursue a state-based resolution. Acosta\nsaid that although he, Sloman, and Menchel \"believed the victims\" and \n... [truncated, 3701 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/62 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=62]", "char_count": 3701}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 63, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 64 of 348\n\n[The prosecution] was going forward on the part of the state, and so\nhere is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign .. .\nstate, saying you're not doing enough, [when] to my mind . . . the\nwhole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the []state . . .\nis an independent entity, and that we should presume that what\nthey're doing is correct, even if we don't like the outcome, except\nin the most unusual of circumstances.\nAcosta told OPR that \"absent USAO intervention,\" the state's prosecution of Epstein would have\nbecome final, and accordingly, it was \"prudent\" to employ Petite policy analysis. As Acosta\nexplained in a public statement he issued in 2011, \"the federal responsibility\" in this unique\nsituation was merely to serve as a \"backstop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no\nmiscarriage of justice.\"60 Furthermore, Acosta saw a distinction between a case that originated as\na federal investigation and one that had already been indicted by the state but was brought to the\nfederal government because of a perception that the state charge was inadequate. In the latter\ncircumstance, Acosta viewed the USAO's role only as preventing a \"manifest injustice.\"61 Acosta\nexplained that \"no jail time\" would have been a manifest injustice. But it was his understanding\nthat if Epstein had pled guilty to state charges and received a two-year sentence to a registrable\noffense, \"it would never have come to the office in the first place,\" and therefore would not be\nviewed as a manifest injustice.\nAcosta also told OPR he was concerned that a federal prosecution in this case would result\nin unfavorable precedent, because the Epstein case straddled the line between \"solicitation\" or\n\"prostitution,\" which Acosta described as a traditional state concern, and \"trafficking,\" which was\nan emerging matter of federal interest. Acosta contended that in 2006, \"it would have been\nextremely \n... [truncated, 3768 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/63 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=63]", "char_count": 3768}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 64, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 65 of 348\n\nI do think it's important to look back on this, and try to be in the\nshoes of the thought process in 2006 and '07 when trafficking\nprosecutions were fairly new, when . . . more so than today, some\njurors may have looked at this as prostitution, and . . . [a] judge's\ntolerance for victim shaming may have . . . caused more hesitation\non the part of victims ... .63\nFinally, Acosta told OPR that a state-based resolution offered more flexibility in fashioning\na sentence, because he believed prosecutors would have difficulty persuading a federal district\ncourt in the Southern District ofFlorida to approve a federal plea for a stipulated binding sentence\nthat differed from the otherwise applicable federal sentencing guidelines range.\"\nIn summarizing his thinking at the time, Acosta told OPR,\nThe way the matter came to the office was, the state wasn't doing\nenough. It didn't provide for prison time. It didn't provide for\nregistration, and then you had the restitution issue. There were legal\nissues .... There were witness issues. And ... we could go to trial\n. . . and we may or may not prevail. Alternatively, we could look at\na pre-indictment resolution, and at various points, the office went\nback and forth between a federal pre-indictment resolution, and a\nstate pre-indictment resolution.\nAcosta told OPR that, in the end, \"there was a preference for deferring to the state\" because, in\npart, the facts of the Epstein case at the time appeared to constitute solicitation or prostitution\nrather than trafficking, and a federal prosecution would be \"uncharted territory.\" Acosta explained\nthat he did not view it as problematic to defer resolution of the case to the state, although as the\nEpstein case played out, the federal role became \"more intrusive\" than he had anticipated, because\nthe defense tried to get the state to \"circumvent and undermine\" the outcome.\n\nAttorney's Office could have proceeded against Ep\n... [truncated, 3499 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/64 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=64]", "char_count": 3499}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 65, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 66 of 348\n\nMenchel could not recall who initially suggested a state plea, but noted to OPR that his\nown \"emails ... make clear that this course ofaction was ultimately decided by Alex Acosta.\" He\nreferenced, among others, his May 14, 2007 email to Villafalia informing her that Acosta was\ndeciding how he wanted to handle the case. Menchel surmised that a state resolution accomplished\ntwo things that Acosta viewed as important: first, it resolved any Petite policy concerns, and\nsecond, it afforded more flexibility in sentencing than a federal plea would have allowed. Menchel\ntold OPR that the state plea proposal did not reflect any minimization of Epstein's conduct and\nthat any state plea would have been to an offense that required sexual offender registration. He\ntold OPR, \"I don't think anybody sat around and said, you know, it's not that big a deal. That was\nnot the reaction that I think anybody had from the federal side of this case.\" Rather, Menchel said,\n\"The concern was if we charge him [as proposed], there's going to be a trial.\"\n2.\n\nJuly 2007: Villafana and Menchel Disagree about the Proposed State\nResolution\n\nVillafatia told OPR that she was angry when she received Menchel's July email explaining\nthat he had proposed to\nresolving the federal investigation through a state plea. In\nVillafatia's view, the proposed state resolution \"didn't make any sense\" and \"did not correspond\"\nto Department policy requiring that a plea offer reflect \"the most serious readily provable\noffense.\"65 In her view, a plea to a state charge \"obviously\" would not satisfy this policy. Villafalia\nalso told OPR that in her view, the USAM required the USAO to confer with the investigative\nagency about plea negotiations, and Villafana did not believe the FBI would be in favor of a state\nplea. Villafatia also believed the CVRA required attorneys for the government to confer with\nvictims before making a plea offer, but the victims \n... [truncated, 3635 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/65 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=65]", "char_count": 3635}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 66, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 67 of 348\n\nIn light of these concerns, Villafafia emailed Menchel, expressing her strong disagreement\nwith the process:\n[I]t is inappropriate for you to enter into plea negotiations without\nconsulting with me or the investigative agencies, and it is more\ninappropriate to make a plea offer that you know is completely\nunacceptable to the FBI, ICE [Immigration and Customs\nEnforcement], the victims, and me. These plea negotiations violate\nthe Ashcroft memo, the U.S. Attorney[s'] Manual, and all of the\nvarious iterations of the victims' rights legislation. Strategically,\nyou have started the plea negotiations as though we are in a position\nof weakness, anxious to make the case go away, by telling the\ndefense that we will demand no federal conviction. We left the\nmeeting on June 26th in a stronger position than when we entered,\nand your statement that a state resolution would satisfy us takes\naway that advantage. If you make it seem like the U.S. Attorney\ndoesn't have faith in our investigation, Epstein has no incentive to\nmake a deal.\nSecond, your discussion makes it appear that my investigation is for\n\"show\" only and completely undermines my ability to deal with\nEpstein's attorneys directly....\n\nI would like to make a presentation to the U.S. Attorney, Jeff\n[Sloman], Andy [Lourie], and you with our side of the investigation\nand a revised indictment. The presentation will address the points\nraised by Epstein's counsel and will convince you all of the strength\nof the case.\nIn the meantime, please direct all communications from Epstein's\ncounsel to me.\nMenchel told OPR he realized Villafaiia was \"very anxious\" to file charges in the case.\nVillafafia had put a \"tremendous\" amount of effort into the investigation, and Menchel \"was not\nunsympathetic at all to her desires\" to pursue a federal case. However, as Menchel told OPR,\nVillafafia's supervisors, including Acosta, were \"trying to be a little bit more dispassio\n... [truncated, 2523 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/66 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=66]", "char_count": 2523}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 67, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 68 of 348\n\nMenchel's reply email began with a rebuke:\nBoth the tone and substance of your email are totally inappropriate\nand, in combination with other matters in the past, it seriously calls\nyour judgment into question.\nAs you well know, the US Attorney has not even decided whether\nto go forward with a prosecution in this matter, thus you should have\nrespected his position before engaging in plea negotiations.\nAlong that same line, despite whatever contrary representations you\nmade to the agents in this matter, it was made clear to you by the US\nAttorney and the First Assistant from the time when you were first\nauthorized to investigate Mr. Epstein that the office had concerns\nabout taking this case because of petit [sic] policy and a number of\nlegal issues. Despite being told these things, you prepared a pros\nmemo and indictment that included a definitive date for indictment.\nIt has come to my attention that you led the agents to believe that\nthe indictment of this matter was a foregone conclusion and that our\ndecision to put off that date and listen to the defense attorneys'\nconcerns is indicative of the office having second thoughts about\nindicting. As you well knew, you were never given authorization\nby anyone to seek an indictment in this case.\"\nIn the email, Menchel went on to explain the circumstances of his conversation with\nand respond to Villafafia's complaints:\nLilly\ncalled me before, not after, the June 26th meeting. It\nwas an informal discussion and not in the nature of an official plea\noffer but rather a feeling out by both sides as to what it might take\nto resolve the matter. As you are also well aware, the only reason\nwhy this office even agreed to look into the Epstein matter in the\nfirst instance was because of concerns that the State had not done an\nadequate job in vindicating the victims' rights. As you and the\nagents conceded, had Epstein been convicted of a felony that\nresulted in a\n... [truncated, 2595 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/67 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=67]", "char_count": 2595}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 68, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 69 of 348\n\non the defense team believes that the federal investigation in this\nmatter has been for show.\nNor are your arguments that I have violated the Ashcroft memo, the\nUSAM or any other policy well taken. As Chief of the Criminal\nDivision, I am the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise\nappropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are\nappropriate and consistent with the Ashcroft memo and the USAM\n— not you.\nAs for your statement that my concerns about this case hurting\nProject Safe Childhood are unfounded, I made it clear to you that\nthose concerns were voiced by the US Attorney.° Whether or not\nyou are correct, matters of policy are always within his purview and\nany decisions in that area ultimately rest with him.\nFinally, you may not dictate the dates and people you will meet with\nabout this or any other case. If the U.S. Attorney or the First\nAssistant desire to meet with you, they will let you know. Nor will\nI direct Epstein's lawyers to communicate only with you. If you\nwant to work major cases in the district you must understand and\naccept the fact that there is a chain of command — something you\ndisregard with great regularity.\nVillafafia acknowledged to OPR that as Criminal Division Chief, Menchel had authority to\ndeviate from the Ashcroft Memo requiring that guilty pleas be to the most serious readily provable\noffense. She disagreed, however, with his representation about her initial meeting with Acosta\nand Sloman regarding the Epstein investigation, noting that Menchel had not been at that\nmeeting.\" Villafafia told OPR that no one had communicated to her the \"concerns\" Menchel\nmentioned, and she had not been given an opportunity to respond to those concerns.\"\nA week later, Villafafia replied to Menchel's email, reiterating her concerns about the\nprocess and that filing charges against Epstein was not moving forward:\nHi Matt — My trial is over, so I now have [ ] time to f\n... [truncated, 2993 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/68 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=68]", "char_count": 2993}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 69, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 70 of 348\n\ne-mail that I would like to address, and I also would like to address\nwhere we are in the case.\nFirst, I wanted to address the comment about jumping the chain of\ncommand. After that concern was brought to my attention several\nmonths ago, I have tried very hard to be cognizant of the chain of\ncommand.. . . If there is a particular instance of violating the chain\nof command that you would like to discuss, I would be happy to\ndiscuss it with you.\n\nThe statement that I have not respected Alex's position regarding\nthe prosecution of the case demonstrates why you hear the\nfrustration in the tone of my e-mail. For two and a half months I\nhave been asking about what that position is. I have asked for\ndirection on whether to revise the indictment, whether there are\nother issues that Alex wants addressed prior to deciding, whether\nthere is additional investigation that needs to be done, etc. None of\nthat direction has been forthcoming, so I am left with . . . victims,\nand agents all demanding to know why we aren't presenting an\nindictment. Perhaps that lack of direction is through no fault of\nyours, but I have been dealing with a black box, so I do not know to\nwhom I should address my frustration. My recollection of the\noriginal meeting with Alex and Jeff is quite different than your\nsummary. In that meeting, I summarized the case and the State\nAttorney's Office's handling of it. I acknowledged that we needed\nto do work to collect the evidence establishing a federal nexus, and\nI noted the time and money that would be required for an\ninvestigation. I said that I was willing to invest that time and the\nFBI was willing to invest the money, but I didn't want to get to the\nend and then have the Office be intimidated by the high-powered\nlawyers. I was assured that that would not happen. Now I feel like\nceiling that prevents me from moving forward while\nthere is a\nevidence suggests that Epstein is continuing to \n... [truncated, 2714 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/69 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=69]", "char_count": 2714}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 70, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 71 of 348\n\nproof beyond a reasonable doubt of Epstein's criminal culpability.\nLastly, I was not hying to \"dictate\" a meeting with the U.S. Attorney\nor anyone else. I stated that I \"would like\" to schedule a meeting,\nasking to have the same courtesy that was extended to the defense\nattorneys extended to the FBI and an Assistant in the Office. With\nrespect to your questions regarding my judgment, I will simply say\nthat disagreements about strategy and raising concerns about the\nforgotten voices of the victims in this case should not be classified\nas a lapse in judgment. This Office should seek to\nspirited\ndebate about the law and the use of prosecutorial discretion . . . .\n[M]y first and only concern in this case (and my other child\nexploitation cases) is the victims. If our personality differences\nthreaten their access to justice, then please put someone on the case\nwhom you trust more, and who will also protect their rights.\nIn the meantime, I will be meeting with the agents on Monday to\nbegin preparing a revised indictment package containing your\nsuggestions on the indictment and responding to the issues raised by\nEpstein's attorneys. . . . If there are any specific issues that you or\nthe U.S. Attorney would like to see addressed, please let me know.70\nVillafafia did not get the meeting with Acosta that she requested. She viewed Menchel's\nmessage as a rejection of her request to make a presentation to Acosta, and she told OPR that even\nthough she regarded Sloman as a friend, she did not feel she could reach out even to him to raise\nher concerns.' Menchel, however, told OPR that he did not \"order\" Villafafia to refrain from\nraising her concerns with Acosta, Sloman, or Lourie, and he did not believe his email to Villafafia\nforeclosed her from meeting with Acosta. Rather, \"the context of this exchange is, she is running\nroughshod over the U.S. Attorney, and what I am saying to her is, there is a process. You\n... [truncated, 3099 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/70 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=70]", "char_count": 3099}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 71, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 72 of 348\n\nEarly in the federal investigation, Villafafta recognized the potential significance of\nobtaining the missing computer equipment. Villafafta told OPR that she and the FBI agents went\nthrough every photograph found in Epstein's house, but found none that could be characterized as\nchild pornography. Nevertheless, Villafaria told OPR that investigators had learned that Epstein\nused hidden cameras in his New York residence to record his sexual encounters, and she believed\nhe could have engaged in similar conduct in his Palm Beach home. In addition, the computer\nequipment potentially contained surveillance video that might have corroborated victim statements\nabout visiting Epstein's home. More generally, in Villafafta's experience, individuals involved in\nchild exploitation often possessed child pornography.72 Villafafta's co-counsel, who had\nsubstantial experience prosecuting child pornography cases, similarly told OPR, \"Epstein was a\nbillionaire. We knew his house was wired with video, it would be unusual [for] someone with his\ncapabilities not to be video recording\" his encounters.\nAs the investigation continued, Villafafta took various steps to acquire the computer\nequipment removed from Epstein's Palm Beach residence. As noted previously in this Report, in\nher initial request to Epstein's counsel for documents, she asked defense counsel to provide \"[t]he\ncomputers, hard drives, CPUs, and any other computer media (including CD-ROMs, DVDs,\nfloppy disks, flash drives, etc.) removed from\" the residence. Although Lourie subsequently\nnarrowed the government's request for documents, the request for computer equipment remained.\nThe defense, however, failed to comply with the request.\nVillafafia learned that the computer equipment was in the possession of a particular\nindividual. After consulting the Department's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section\nand Office of Enforcement Operations about \n... [truncated, 3549 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/71 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=71]", "char_count": 3549}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 72, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 73 of 348\n\n, Villafalia, and\nequipment.70 After further communications on this issue involving Black,\nLourie, Black took legal action that effectively halted production of the computer equipment to the\nUSAO until the issue could be decided by the court—which, as explained below, never happened\nbecause the parties entered into the NPA.\nC.\n\nJuly 2007: The Defense Continues Its Efforts to Stop the Federal Investigation\n\nIn addition to their efforts to stop the government from obtaining the computer equipment,\ndefense counsel also sent letters to the USAO, dated July 6, 2007, and July 25, 2007, reiterating\ntheir objections to a federal investigation of Epstein. The July 25, 2007 letter included a lengthy\n\"case analysis chart\" purporting to support the defense argument that Epstein had committed no\nfederal offense. The July 25 letter also noted that the defense had been consulting with the former\nPrincipal Deputy Chief of CEOS, reporting that she \"supports our position without reservation that\nthis is not a matter upon which the federal statu[t]es should be brought to bear.\"'\nWhile the defense was reiterating its objections to the federal investigation, CEOS\nexpressed its endorsement of Villafafia's legal analysis and proposed charges. On July 18, 2007,\nCEOS Chief Oosterbaan emailed Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, stating that he had read\nVillafafia's prosecution memorandum \"closely,\" and noting that \"[s]he did a terrific job. As we\nopined to Andy [Londe] back in May, [CEOS] agree[s] with her legal analysis. Her charging\ndecisions are legally sound.\" Oosterbaan observed:\nI have also reviewed the arguments contained in the letters from\ndefense counsel. Their legal analysis is detailed and comprehensive,\nbut I find none of their arguments persuasive. That is not to say that\nall the arguments are completely devoid of merit. I expect the judge\nto consider some of the arguments closely. Nevertheless, while the\nlaw appl\n... [truncated, 3310 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/72 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=72]", "char_count": 3310}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 73, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nD.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 74 of 348\n\nAcosta Decides on a Resolution That Includes a Two-Year Term of\nIncarceration\n\nThe next critical step in the development of the NPA was the decision to propose a twoyear term of imprisonment. Although presented to the defense as the \"minimum\" the USAO would\naccept, in actuality the two-year proposal became only the starting point for the negotiations, with\nthe result that the defense continued to chip away at it as the negotiations continued. The\ncontemporaneous emails make no mention of any rationale for the decision to propose two years\nas the government's beginning negotiating position, and nobody with whom OPR spoke was able\nto recall how the decision was made. As discussed below, Acosta did offer OPR an explanation,\nbut OPR was unable to find contemporaneous evidence supporting it.76\nWhile the defense was communicating its objections to the federal investigation to\nVillafafia, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman, Villafafia continued moving toward filing charges. On\nJuly 19, 2007, the day after receiving Oosterbaan's email supporting a potential prosecution,\nVillafafia emailed Lourie and Menchel seeking approval to take further investigative steps\nregarding three of Epstein's assistants. However, Menchel directed Villafafia to \"hold off... until\nwe decide what course of action we are going to take on [E]pstein which should happen next\nweek.\" Menchel told OPR that he did not specifically recall why he asked Villafafia to wait, but\nhe assumed it was because Acosta was deciding what course of action to take on the case.\nOn Monday, July 23, 2007, Menchel submitted a resignation notice to Acosta, stating that\nhe would be leaving the USAO effective August 6, 2007.\"\n1.\n\nThe July 26, 2007 Meeting in Miami\n\nEarly on the morning of Thursday, July 26, 2007, Villafafia informed Menchel that she was\npreparing a new draft indictment containing revisions he had suggested, including removal of all\nbut three of\n... [truncated, 3330 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/73 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=73]", "char_count": 3330}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 74, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 75 of 348\n\nVillafafia, Menchel left the meeting after almost no discussion, leaving Villafafia \"shocked and\nstunned.\"\nMenchel told OPR that he did not recall the July 26, 2007 meeting. Nonetheless, he\nstrongly disputed Villafafta's description of events, asserting that it would have been \"directly at\nodds with his management style\" to convene such a meeting, announce Acosta's decision, and\nleave without discussion. Acosta told OPR that he had \"decided and endorsed this resolution at\nsome point,\" but he did not recall being aware that Menchel was going to announce the decision\nat the July 26 meeting; in addition, although Acosta did not recall the circumstances of Menchel's\nrelaying of that decision, he said it \"would have been consistent with\" his decision for Menchel to\ndo so. Neither Sloman nor Lourie recalled the meeting. The FBI case agent recalled attending a\nmeeting at the USAO in Miami with her co-case agent and supervisors, together with Villafafia,\nLourie (by telephone), Menchel, and Sloman, at which they discussed how to proceed with the\nEpstein case. According to the case agent, at this meeting the FBI insisted that Epstein be\nregistered for life as a sexual offender, and the co-case agent advocated for waiting until the court\nhad ruled on the USAO's ability to obtain Epstein's computer equipment.\nRegardless of exactly how Acosta's decision regarding the two-year term was\ncommunicated to Villafafia and the FBI agents, and regardless of who initially proposed the\nspecific term, the record shows that Acosta ultimately made the decision to offer Epstein a\nresolution that included a two-year term of imprisonment, as he acknowledged.\"\n2.\n\nThe Subjects' Explanations for the Decision to Offer Epstein a Sentence\nwith a Two-Year Term of Incarceration\n\nVillafafia asserted that she was not consulted about the specific two-year term before the\ndecision was made.79 Villafafia told OPR that she had worked har\n... [truncated, 3730 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/74 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=74]", "char_count": 3730}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 75, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 76 of 348\n\nSloman also told OPR that he did not know how the decision to offer a two-year plea offer\nwas reached, but he believed that Acosta made the decision based on recommendations from\nMenchel, Lourie, and Villafaila. He opined to OPR that the decision was likely based on an\nassessment by Menchel and Lourie of the litigation risks presented by the case.81 Sloman added\nthat he did not know how a two-year sentence might have related to specific charges or to either\nstate or federal sentencing guidelines. Lourie likewise told OPR he did not recall how the two-year\nterm was decided upon, or by whom, but he speculated that it may have been presented by the\ndefense as the most Epstein would accept, and that the decision would have been reached by\nAcosta following \"extended consideration, research, and discussion,\" among Acosta, Sloman,\nMenchel, Lourie, and Villafafia.\"\nMenchel told OPR that he did not recall discussing a two-year plea deal with Acosta or\nwho reached the decision that two years was an appropriate sentence. Menchel also told OPR,\nhowever, that he recalled believing that if the USAO had filed the contemplated federal charges,\nEpstein would have felt he had \"nothing to lose\" and \"undoubtedly\" would have chosen to take\nthe case to trial. Menchel recalled believing there was a real risk that the USAO might lose at trial,\nand in so doing, might cause more trauma to the victims, particularly those who were reluctant to\ntestify. Menchel told OPR that he did not believe that anyone at the time looked at two years \"as\na fair result in terms of the conduct. I think that was not the issue. The issue was whether or not\nif we took this case to trial, would we risk losing everything,\" and \"if we . . . felt we could have\ngotten more time, we would have, without having to press it to the trial.\"\nAcosta told OPR that \"I had decided and endorsed\" the two-year resolution \"at some\npoint,\" and that it resulted fr\n... [truncated, 4020 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/75 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=75]", "char_count": 4020}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 76, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 77 of 348\n\nunderstood that the PBPD would not have asked the FBI to investigate Epstein if the state had\npursued the appropriate charges. In other words, in Acosta's view, \"[T]his was, rightly or wrongly,\nan analysis that distinguished between what is necessary to prevent manifest injustice, versus what\nis the appropriate federal outcome to that.\" Acosta told OPR that he believed he had discussed his\nconcerns about the case with Lourie, Sloman, or Menchel, although he could not recall any specific\nconversation with them.\nE.\n\nVillafafia Drafts a \"Term Sheet\" Listing the Requirements of a Potential\nAgreement with the Defense\n\nA meeting with defense counsel was scheduled for Tuesday, July 31, 2007. Villafafia told\nOPR that between July 26 and July 30, 2007, she had \"some sort of discussion\" with her\nsupervisors that resulted in her creation of a \"term sheet\" identifying the proposed terms for\nresolving the federal investigation through state charges. Sometime during that period, Villafafia\nleft a voicemail message for Menchel. During their OPR interviews, neither Villafafia nor\nMenchel could recall what Villafafia said in that message. On July 30, 2007, Menchel emailed\nVillafafia:\nI received your voicemail this morning. I don't see any reason to\nchange our approach. I think telling them that unless the state\nresolves this in a way that appropriately vindicates our interests and\nthe interests of the victims, we will seek federal charges] conveys\nthat we are serious. While Lilly\nhas represented in the\npast that this would likely not happen, I never conveyed it in quite\nthese terms before. In any event, this is the course of action that the\nUS Attorney feels comfortable taking at this juncture.\nThe following day, July 31, 2007, Villafafia emailed a one-page \"Terms of Epstein\nNon-Prosecution Agreement\" to Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie. Villafafia told OPR she had never\nbefore seen or heard of a non-prosecution agre\n... [truncated, 3404 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/76 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=76]", "char_count": 3404}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 77, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 78 of 348\n\nas a \"non-prosecution agreement\" came from Acosta, although Menchel may have communicated\nthat terminology to her. According to Villafafia, she asked that it include a mechanism for the\nvictims to be provided monetary compensation through 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in lieu of the restitution\nthat would have been available if Epstein were pleading guilty to federal charges.\" Acosta told\nOPR that he \"developed and approved\" the term sheet.\"\nBefore the document was presented to defense counsel, two terms were dropped from\nVillafafia's draft—one providing that the agreement would apply only to already-identified\nvictims, and another requiring the deal to be accepted, and Epstein to plead guilty, within the\nmonth. The final term sheet was as follows:\n\nto plea agreements, which involve the formal conviction of a corporation in a\ncourt proceeding.\nMemorandum from Acting Deputy Attorney General Craig S. Morford to Heads of Departmental Components and\nUnited States Attorneys at n.2 (Mar. 7, 2008), available at hnps://ww.justice.goviarchives/jmicriminal-resourcemanual-163-selection-and-use-monitors. Villafaha did not have significant experience prosecuting corporate entities.\n86\n\nA civil remedy for personal injuries suffered by victims of certain crimes is provided for in the federal\ncriminal code at 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Subsection (a) of the statute, as in effect from July 27, 2006, to\nMarch 6, 2013, provided as follows:\nAny person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section\n2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of\nthis title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless\nof whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any\nappropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such\nperson sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any\nperson as described in the pr\n... [truncated, 2413 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/77 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=77]", "char_count": 2413}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 78, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 79 of 348\n\nCONFIDENTIAL PLEA NEGOTIATIONS\nTERMS OF EPSTEIN NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT\n\nV.\n\n■\n\nEpstein pleads guilty (not nolo contendere) to an Information filed by the\nPalm Beach County State Attorney's Office charging him with:\n(a)\nlewd and lascivious battery on a child, in violation of Fl. Stat.\n800.04(4):\n(b)\nsolicitation of minors to engage in prostitution. in violation of Fl.\nStat. 796.03: and\n(c)\nengaging in sexual activity with minors at least sixteen years of age.\nin violation of Fl. Stat. 794.05.\n\n■\n\nEpstein and the State Attorney's Office make a joint, binding\nrecommendation that Epstein serve at least two years in prison, without any\nopportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing: and without\nprobation or community control in lieu of imprisonment.\n\n■\n\nEpstein agrees to waive all challenges to the information filed by the State\nand the right to appeal.\n\n■\n\nEpstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal\ninvestigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest\nthe jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of\nFlorida over his person and the subject matter. Epstein will not contest that\nthe identified victims are persons who, while minors, were victims of\nviolations of Title 18. United States Code. Sections(s) 2422 and/or 2423.\n\n■\n\nAfter Epstein enters his state court plea and is sentenced, the FBI and the\nU.S. Attorney's Office will close their investigations.\n\nTHE USAO PRESENTS EPSTEIN WITH KEY TERMS OF A DEAL: PLEAD\nGUILTY TO STATE CHARGES REQUIRING A TWO-YEAR TERM OF\nINCARCERATION AND SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION, AND AGREE\nTO A MEANS FOR THE VICTIMS TO OBTAIN MONETARY DAMAGES\n\nAlthough the USAO term sheet was presented to Epstein's defense team on July 31, 2007,\nit took almost another two months to reach a final agreement in the form of the NPA. The\ncontemporaneous emails show that over the course of those two months, de\n... [truncated, 2616 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/78 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=78]", "char_count": 2616}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 79, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 80 of 348\n\nthe period of imprisonment, because the USAO failed to hold firm to its proposal of \"at least two\nyears in prison.\" The USAO did, however, consistently reject defense proposals to change other\nterms, particularly the requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender.\nA.\n\nJuly 31, 2007: The USAO Presents Its Proposal to the Defense Team, which\nMakes a Counteroffer\n\nMenchel Sloman, Lourie, Villafafla, and the case agents met with Epstein attorneys\nLefcourt,\nand Black on July 31, 2007, with Menchel \"leading the meeting\" for the\nUSAO.87 The USAO presented the term sheet, and Villafafia distributed a federal sentencing\nguidelines calculation showing that if prosecuted federally, Epstein faced a sentencing range of\n188 to 235 months' incarceration.\nVillafaila recalled that during the meeting, Epstein's attorneys opposed the requirement of\nsexual offender registration, argued that Epstein would not be safe in prison, suggested that Epstein\nserve a sentence of home confinement or \"community control\"88 in lieu of incarceration, and\nemphasized that a state resolution provided greater sentencing flexibility? Villafafia told OPR\nthat when Epstein's attorneys expressed concern during the meeting about Epstein's security in a\nstate prison and argued for a home confinement sentence, Menchel suggested Epstein plead to a\nfederal charge so that he could serve his time in a federal facility. A few days after the meeting,\nVillafafia emai led Menchel, stating that she had \"figured out a way to do a federal plea with a 2-1/2\nyear cap.\"\nAlthough Acosta had authorized a plea to state charges, emails and other correspondence\nshow that during the negotiations, the parties also considered structuring a plea around federal\n\nVillafafia was the only witness with whom OPR spoke who had a substantive memory of this meeting.\nAccording to the Florida Department ofCorrections fact sheet for defendants subjected to community \n... [truncated, 3484 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/79 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=79]", "char_count": 3484}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 80, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\ncharges in addition to state charges. On behalf of the defense team,\nJuly 31, 2007 meeting with an August 2, 2007 letter to Menchel:\n\nPage 81 of 348\n\nfollowed up on the\n\nWe welcomed your recognition that a state prison sentence is neither\nappropriate for, nor acceptable to, Mr. Epstein, as the dangers of the\nstate prison system pose risks that are clearly untenable. We\nacknowledge that your suggestion of a plea to two federal\nmisdemeanors was an attempt to resolve this dilemma. Our\nproposal is significantly punitive, and if implemented, would, we\nbelieve, leave little doubt that the federal interest was demonstrably\nvindicated.90\nadded, \"We must keep in mind that Jeffrey Epstein is a 54-year-old man who has never\nbeen arrested before. He has lived an otherwise exemplary life.\"\nThe \"significantly punitiveLmmal described in the defense letter involved no period of\nmandatory incarceration. Instead,\nsuggested two years of home confinement, with regular\nreporting to and visits from a community control officer, payment of restitution, damages, court\nand probationary costs, and law enforcement costs; random drug testing; community service;\npsychological counseling; and a prohibition on unsupervised contact with the victims. The letter\nspecifically referred to the victim damages-recovery procedure that the government had proposed\nunder 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and represented that Epstein was \"prepared to fully fund the identified\ngroup of victims which are the focus of the [USAO] — that is, the 12 individuals noted at the\nmeeting on July 31, 2007.\" Under the defense proposal, the state would incarcerate Epstein only\nif he failed to comply with the terms of supervised custody.\nalso advised that the defense\nteam was seeking a meeting with Acosta.\nB.\n\nIn an August 3, 2007 Letter, the USAO States That a Two-Year Term of\nImprisonment Is the Minimum That will Vindicate the Federal Interest\n\nVillafafia told OPR that she and her mana\n... [truncated, 3431 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/80 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=80]", "char_count": 3431}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 81, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 82 of 348\n\nMenchel made several substantive changes to Villafafta's draft letter. He specified that \"a\ntwo-year term of state imprisonment\" was the minimum sentence that would satisfy the federal\ninterest in the case. (Emphasis added.) With regard to the option of a federal plea, Menchel wrote\nthat the USAO \"would be willing to explore a federal conviction\" and retained the reference to a\nRule 11(c) plea. Menchel also removed the reference to the specific state offenses to which Epstein\nwould be required to plead guilty. Menchel forwarded the redraft to Acosta, suggesting that they\nspeak about it the next morning, as well as to Sloman, Lourie, and Villafafta.\nThe final letter, as shown on the following pages, was identical to Menchel's redraft, except\nthat it omitted all reference to a federal plea under Rule 11(c).91\n\n91\n\nMenchel told OPR that he did not disfavor Rule 11(c) pleas but knew that the USAO believed the judges\nwere generally averse to them. He did not recall why the provision was dropped from the letter, but \"assumed\" it was\na decision by Acosta. In a September 6, 2007 email, Villafaria told Sloman that she and Menchel had discussed a\nRule 11(c) plea, but she opined that Menchel \"must have asked Alex about it and it was nixed.\" Villafana told OPR\nthat Lourie, too, had told her Acosta did not want to do a Rule 11(c) plea.\n\n56\n\nEFTA02830857\n\n", "char_count": 1436}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 82, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 83 of 348\n\nU.S. Department ofJustice\nUnited Stares Attorney\nSouthern District ofFlorida\nR ALEXANDER .4(11571\nUNITEDMA FS 471O1INF V\n\n99 NC 491w1\nMat FL 111)2\ntiVaj 9614100 • reltase\n095)\n6444 Facials\n\nAugust 3, 2007\n\nVIA FACSIMII.F\nLilly Ann\n\nEst .\n\nRe:\n\nJeffrey Epstein\n\nDear Lilly:\nThank you for your letter of August 2nd regarding your proposal on how to resolve the\nEpstein matter.\nAs we explained at our meeting on July 31, 2007, the Office believes that the federal\ninterest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two-year term of state imprisonment for\nMr. Epstein. That offer was not meant as a starting point for negotiations, it is the minimum\nterm of imprisonment that will obviate the need for federal prosecution. The Office has\nnever agreed that a state prison sentence is not appropriate for Mr. Epstein. Rather we\nsimply stated that if Mr. Epstein preferred to serve his sentence in a federal penctentiary, we\nwould be willing to explore a federal conviction that may allow that in lieu of any state\nresolution. Further, as I made clear in our follow up telephone conversation after the\nmeeting, a plea to two federal misdemeanors was never extended or meant as an offer.\nWe also would reiterate that the agreement to Section 2255 liability applies to all of\nthe minor girls identified during the federal investigation, not just the 12 that form the basis\nof an initial planned charging instrument.\nAs you know, the ability to engage in flexible plea negotiations is dramatically\nchanged upon the return of an indictment. Once an indictment is returned, the Office does\nnot intend to file a Superseding Information containing a lesser charge or to dismiss the case\nin favor of state prosecution.\n\n57\n\nEFTA02830858\n\n", "char_count": 1796}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 83, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 84 of 348\n\nLIUS ANN SANCHEZ, EsQ.\nAvousr 3,2007\nPAGE 2\nPlease let us know your client's decision by no later than August 17. 1have conferred\nwith U.S. Attorney Acosta who has asked me to communicate that the two-year term of\nincarceration is a non-negotiable minimum to vindicate a federal interest, and, at this time,\nhe is not inclined to meet with counsel for Mr. Epstein.\nSincerely,\nR. Alexander Acosta\nUnited States Attorney\n\nMatthew Menchel\nChief; Criminal Division\ncc:\n\nRoy Black\nGerald B. I.efeourt\nR. Alexander Acosta\nJeffrey Sloman\nAndrew Loune\nA.\nVillararla\n\nMenchel told OPR that in his view, the two-year sentence established a \"floor\" for\nnegotiations and if Epstein rejected the offer, subsequent offers would require him to accept more\njail time rather than less. Menchel told OPR that the USAO was \"leaving our options open\" by\nretaining the option of a federal plea because he thought the defense was \"trying . . . to get him\ninto a federal penitentiary.\" The letter's deadline of August 17, 2007, for acceptance of the\ngovernment's offer was intended to accommodate Villafafia's request that the deadline provide\nher with enough time to go to New York, pursue investigative steps involving two of Epstein's\nassistants, do witness interviews, and take additional legal steps to obtain Epstein's computers if\nEpstein rejected the deal. Menchel told OPR he considered August 17 to be a firm deadline: \"[I]f\nyou tell someone they have two weeks, it should be two weeks.\" Menchel signed and sent the\nletter on Friday, August 3, 2007, which was his last day at the USAO before joining a private law\nfirm.92\nThe following Monday, August 6, 2007, Villafafia contacted Menchel by email at his new\nfirm to inquire whether the letter to Epstein's counsel had gone out on Friday. Villafafia explained\nMenchel told OPR that the timing of the letter to\nwith his impending departure from the USAO.\n\n92\n\nwas a \"total coincidence,\" and h\n... [truncated, 2036 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/83 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=83]", "char_count": 2036}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 84, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 85 of 348\n\nto OPR that she \"wanted to know whether this letter went out. Because . . . if the letter didn't go\nout we can make this all go away and restart.\" Menchel confirmed to her that he had sent the letter\nout by email.\nLater that day, the West Palm Beach FBI squad supervisor told Sloman that he understood\nEpstein had rejected the USAO's proposal, and he asked when Epstein would be charged.\nVillafaila told OPR that the squad supervisor \"yelled at\" Sloman about the USAO's decision not\nto prosecute Epstein federally. Sloman similarly told OPR that the squad supervisor \"like\n[Villafafia]\n[a]nd the agents felt very strongly about the case.\"93\nC.\n\nAugust - September 2007: Epstein Hires Additional Attorneys, Who Meet\nwith Acosta\n1.\n\nAcosta Agrees to Meet with Epstein's New Attorneys\n\nVillafatia told OPR that Epstein's team was \"incensed\" that Acosta would not meet with\nthem and that the USAO had set such a short deadline to respond to its offer. Around this time,\nEpstein added to his team Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz, two prominent attorneys from the law\nfirm Kirkland & Ellis, whom Acosta knew from his employment a decade earlier as an associate\nat the firm.\" On the evening of August 6, 2007, Sloman emailed Acosta: \"Just saw Menchel. I\ndidn't know Kirkland made a call into you. You were right. Unbelievable.\" During their OPR\ninterviews, neither Acosta nor Sloman remembered the call from Kirkland & Ellis and could\nprovide no additional information about the contact.95 A reply email from Acosta to Sloman\nindicates that the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys were considering elevating to the Department their\nobjections to the USAO's involvement in the Epstein matter. In that email, Acosta stated, \"They\nare likely to go to DC. We should strategize a bit. We are not changing positions, and that should\nbe made clear.\"\nThe next day, Acosta wrote to Sloman:\n[Epstein's] attorneys want to go to DC on the case, on the grou\n... [truncated, 3218 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/84 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=84]", "char_count": 3218}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 85, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 86 of 348\n\njurisdiction), while making clear that we are not talking about the\ndetails of the case, and (ii) asking [CEOS Chief] Oosterba[an] to\nparticipate by teleconference, thereby intercepting the DC meeting.\nThoughts?\nAcosta told OPR that he had no concern about Departmental \"scrutiny of the NPA scheme\" and\nthat \"[i]f anything,\" he was concerned whether the Department might direct the USAO to \"drop\nthis case.\"96\n2.\n\nLeading to the Meeting with Defense Counsel, Investigative Steps Are\nPostponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose Villafana's Efforts to\nObtain the Computer Evidence\n\nOn August 8, 2007, Villafaiia informed Acosta that she had spoken with Oosterbaan, who\nwas willing to join a meeting with the defense; although he could not do so in person until after\nAugust 21, he was willing to participate by phone in order \"to stay firm on our August 17th\ndeadline.\" Villafafta also reiterated that she wanted to contact Epstein's assistants in New York\nand to interview some of Epstein's colleagues and former employees there. Noting that \"there was\nsome concern about [taking the proposed investigative steps] while we are trying to negotiate a\nplea,\" Villafaria asked Acosta for guidance. Lourie also emailed Acosta and Sloman, asking that\nthe USAO \"stick to our deadline if possible.\" Lourie pointed out that CEOS \"has no approval\nauthority\" and opined it was \"a bit extreme to allow the defense to keep arguing this [case] to\ndifferent agencies.\" Acosta replied, \"This will end up [at the Department] anyhow, if we don't\nmeet with them. I'd rather keep it here. Brin[g]ing [the Chief of CEOS] in visibly does so. If our\ndeadline has to slip a bit ... it's worth it.\"\nAs a result, the investigative steps were postponed. On August 10, 2007, Villafafta emailed\nLourie inquiring whether she could \"still go ahead\" with the New York trip and whether she could\noppose Black's request to stay the litigation concerning the go\n... [truncated, 3415 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/85 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=85]", "char_count": 3415}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 86, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 87 of 348\n\nShe believed that access to the computer evidence would strengthen the government's negotiating\nposition, but that her supervisors \"did not seem to recognize that.\" Villafafia said she did not\nunderstand why her supervisors were uninterested in determining what the computers contained.\nInstead, they instructed Villafafia to \"keep calling the judge\" to ask for a delay in the litigation\nproceedings.\nSloman told OPR that he recalled an issue about the computers, but did not recall \"what\nthe thinking was at the time\" about pursuing that evidence or why Villafafia was \"ordered to stand\ndown.\" Acosta, Menchel, and Lourie all told OPR that they did not recall Villafafia's effort to\nobtain the computer evidence or that there had been litigation relating to it. Lourie, however, told\nOPR that the computers might have contained \"very powerful evidence\" that possibly \"could have\nchanged our advice to [Acosta], or his decision making.\" In his OPR interview, Menchel was\nuncertain whether the computer evidence would have been useful, but also acknowledged to OPR,\n\"You always want more as a prosecutor.\"\nOn August 31, 2007, in preparation for the upcoming September 7, 2007 meeting with\ndefense counsel that he planned to attend, CEOS Chief Oosterbaan traveled to West Palm Beach\nto meet with Villafafia and the case agents and to examine the case file. He explained to OPR that\nhe wanted to see the file before meeting with the defense so that he could best \"represent[] the\ninterests of the prosecution team,\" and that he was in favor of going forward with the case.\nAccording to Villafafia, during his review of the file, Oosterbaan told her that the case was \"really\ngood\" and offered to assist Villafafia at trial.\nOn September 6, 2007, the day before the meeting with defense counsel, Sloman sent\nVillafafia an email asking, \"Please refresh my recollection. What is the 'deal' on the table?\"\nSloman told OPR that his ques\n... [truncated, 3529 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/86 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=86]", "char_count": 3529}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 87, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 88 of 348\n\nVillafafia added that the PBPD Chief had alerted the FBI that an upcoming news article would\nreport that Epstein was \"going to plead to a state charge\" and the PBPD Chief \"wanted to know if\nthe victims had been consulted about the deal.\" Sloman forwarded Villafafia's email to Acosta\nwith a note that read simply, \"fyi.\"\nLater that evening, Villafafia circulated to Sloman, Lourie, and Oosterbaan two alternative\ndocuments: a draft federal plea agreement and a draft NPA. t00 The draft federal plea agreement,\nfollowing the USAO's standard format, called for Epstein to plead guilty to a five-year conspiracy\nunder 18 U.S.C. § 371 to entice minors to engage in prostitution, an offense requiring registration\nas a sexual offender, with a Rule 11(c) binding sentence of two years' imprisonment. The draft\nNPA contained the terms presented to the defense team on July 31, 2007, and called for Epstein to\nenter a state plea by September 28, 2007. Villafafia told OPR that because she had never seen a\nnon-prosecution agreement before, she relied on a template she found either using USAO or the\nDepartment's internal online resources, but she did not do any additional research regarding the\nuse of non-prosecution agreements. 101\n3.\n\nSeptember 7, 2007: Acosta, Other USAO Attorneys, and FBI\nors Meet with Epstein Attorneys Starr, Lefkowitz, and\n\nM\n\nOn Friday, September 7, 2007, Acosta, Sloman, Villafafia, Villafafia's co-counsel,\nOosterbaan, and one orsTervisory FBI agents met at the USAO's West Palm Beach office\nwith defense attorneys\nand, for the first time, Starr and Lefkowitz.1°2 This was Acosta's\nfirst meeting with Epstein's defense team. Villafafia understood the purpose of this meeting was\nto afford Epstein's counsel an opportunity to \"make a pitch\" as to why the case should not be\nprosecuted federally. Villafafia recalled that at a \"pre-meet\" before defense counsel arrived,\nAcosta did not express concern about \n... [truncated, 3694 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/87 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=87]", "char_count": 3694}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 88, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 89 of 348\n\nforward, that either there is this pre-indictment resolution, or we go forward with an indictment.\nThe September meeting did not alter or shift our position.\"103\nVillafaila told OPR that after hearing the defense argument, Acosta reiterated that the\nfederal interest in the case could be vindicated only by a state plea to an offense that required\nsexual offender registration, resulted in a two-year term of incarceration, and was subject to the\n18 U.S.C. § 2255 process for providing compensation to the victims. When defense counsel\nobjected to the registration requirement, Acosta held firm, and he also rejected the defense proposal\nfor a sentence of home confinement. In a subsequent email exchange with Criminal Division\nDeputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker, who supervised CEOS, Oosterbaan reported\nthat the meeting was \"non-eventful,\" noting that defense counsel argued \"federalism\" and might\napproach Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher to present that argument\ndirectly to her.\nVI.\n\nSEPTEMBER 2007: THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS INTENSIFY, AND IN THE\nPROCESS, THE REQUIRED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS REDUCED\n\nAcosta had dispensed with the August 17, 2007 plea deadline specified in Menchel's\nAugust 3, 2007 letter, in order to allow the defense to meet with him. After that meeting, and\nalthough Villafafia continued to plan to file charges on September 25, no new plea deadline was\nestablished, and the negotiations continued through most of September.\nThe defense used that time to push the USAO to make concessions. Because Acosta was\nnot willing to compromise on the issue of sexual offender registration or providing a means\nthrough which the victims could seek monetary damages, the negotiations focused on the term of\nimprisonment. As the contemporaneous emails show, the USAO did not hold to its position that\na two-year term of imprisonment was \"the minimum\" that the USAO would accep\n... [truncated, 3556 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/88 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=88]", "char_count": 3556}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 89, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 90 of 348\n\nnoted that the revised charges involved 19 victims, so the defense proposal for a 15-month sentence\namounted to less than one month per victim. Villafafia requested that \"whatever the U.S. Attorney\ndecides to do,\" the agreement with Epstein should \"follow . . . a version of my written nonprosecution agreement\" in order to \"avoid any state shenanigans and . . . keep the defense on a\nstrict timeline.\"\nLater that day, Villafafia circulated to Acosta and Sloman a revised NPA that called for a\n20-month jail sentence to be followed by 10 months of home confinement. This redrafted NPA\ncontained a provision that specified, \"With credit for gain time, Epstein shall serve at least\n17 months in a state correctional institution.\"104 Acosta reviewed the revised NPA and amended\nit to include a statement clarifying that it was Epstein's obligation \"to undertake discussions with\nthe State of Florida to ensure compliance with these procedures.\" Villafafia sent her version of the\nrevised NPA to Lefcourt that afternoon and forwarded Acosta's proposed change to him the\nfollowing day, after she learned of it.\nOn September 11, 2007, the court contacted Villafaiia to inquire whether the USAO would\nbe prepared to proceed with the litigation concerning the computers the following day. At\nSloman's direction, Villafafia asked the court to delay the hearing, and the court rescheduled it for\nthe following week. At the same time, anticipating that plea negotiations would fail, Villafafia\ncirculated a revised indictment to her co-counsel and Oosterbaan, seeking their feedback before\nsending it \"through the chain of command.\" Villafafia also sent Oosterbaan the revised NPA and\ntold him she was \"still shooting for 9/25\" to bring charges, assuming the defense declined the\nUSAO's offer. Oosterbaan responded, \"The counter-offering is unfortunate, but I suppose it's\nunderstandable.\"I°5\nThat afternoon, Lourie asked Villafafia, \"What\n... [truncated, 3322 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/89 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=89]", "char_count": 3322}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 90, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 91 of 348\n\nVillafafia told OPR that during the meeting, the group discussed the draft NPA, but she did\nnot think they gave a copy to Krischer and Belohlavek. Neither Krischer nor Belohlavek expressed\nconcern about proceeding as the USA() was proposing. According to Villafafia, Belohlavek\nexplained that a plea to the three state counts identified in the draft NPA would affect the state's\nsentencing guidelines, and that it would be better for the guidelines calculation if Epstein pled\nguilty to just one of the three counts. Villafaiia recalled that when Belohlavek confirmed that\nEpstein would be required to register as a sexual offender if he pled to any one of the three charges,\nLourie, speaking for the USAO, agreed to allow Epstein to enter his plea to just one state charge\nin addition to the pending state indictment, and the defense attorneys selected the charge of\nprocurement of minors to engage in prostitution. 106 Lourie, however, disputed Villafafia's\nrecollection that he made the final decision, stating that it was \"illogical\" to conclude that he had\nthe authority to change the terms of agreement unilaterally. 107\nDuring the meeting, defense counsel raised concerns about Epstein serving time in state\nprison. Villafafia also told OPR that Lourie, the other supervisor, and she made clear during the\nmeeting that they expected Epstein to be incarcerated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, during\nthe entirety of his sentence, and they did not \"particularly care\" whether it was in a state or local\nfacility. Belohlavek explained to OPR that in order for Epstein to serve his time in a county\nfacility, rather than state prison, his sentence on each charge could be no more than 12 months, so\nthat, for example, consecutive terms of 12 months and 6 months—totaling 18 months—could be\nserved in the county jail. Villafafia told OPR:\nOur thing was incarceration 24 hours a day. So during this meeting,\nI remember [the \n... [truncated, 3613 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/90 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=90]", "char_count": 3613}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 91, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 92 of 348\n\ngoing to become a registered sex offender, and he was going to go actually do time—which he\nhadn't done up to this point.\" Krischer asked, \"Why would I turn that down?\" Krischer also noted\nthat at that time, sexual offender registration \"was not the norm\" in Florida, and he recognized that\n\"it was clearly something that was important to the U.S. Attorney's Office.\"108\nAcosta told OPR that he did not recall if he learned what transpired at the September 12\nmeeting, nor did he recall why the USAO team agreed to permit Epstein to plead guilty to only\none charge. Acosta told OPR, however, that he recognized that Villafatia and Lourie needed \"some\ndegree of discretion to negotiate\"; that \"in the give and take\" of negotiations, they might propose\na concession; and he was comfortable with the concession as long as the charge to which Epstein\nultimately pled \"captured the conduct\" in an \"appropriate\" way.\nAlthough Epstein's attorneys expressed interest in Epstein serving his time in a county\nfacility (rather than state prison), one of Epstein's attorneys alternatively expressed interest in\nEpstein serving his time in a federal facility, and along with discussions about the possible state\nresolution, the USAO and Epstein's counsel also discussed a possible federal plea with a sentence\nrunning concurrently to the sentence Epstein would receive on the already indicted state charge.\nLater that day, Villafafia sent Lefkowitz an email advising that she and Lourie had talked with\nAcosta and Sloman, and they were \"all satisfied in principle with the agreement.\"'\" The next day,\nSeptember 13, 2007, Villafafia sent an email to Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and two other supervisors,\nidentifying potential federal offenses that would yield a two-year sentence. Villafafia also emailed\ndefense counsel, stating that she had been \"spending some quality time with Title 18\"—referring\nto the code of federal criminal statutes—to \n... [truncated, 3325 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/91 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=91]", "char_count": 3325}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 92, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 93 of 348\n\nhaving directly with Alex Acosta, and Alex Acosta agreed to 18\nmonths.\nVillafaiia further explained to OPR:\nRegarding going from 24 months to 20 months, I recall a discussion\nthat 24 months of federal time was really 20 months after gain time,\nso Epstein should be allowed to plead to 20 months' in the state.\nEpstein's counsel represented that he wouldn't get gain time like\nthat in the [s]tate, and someone above me agreed. Later, of course,\nas shown in the agreements, Epstein's counsel (Jay Leflcowitz) got\nAlex to agree that Epstein should be allowed to earn gain time in the\n[s]tate, so the 20 months in the state became at least 17 months.\nRegarding going from 20 months' to 18 months, ... this came from\na negotiation between Epstein's counsel and Andy or Alex where\nthe federal statutory max could only be 24 or 18, so 18 was agreed\nto. I also recall that, after Epstein's counsel decided that they\nwanted to proceed with an NPA and only a state guilty plea, I asked\nAlex why we didn't return to 20 months because the reason why we\nwent to 18 months was because that was the only way to end up with\na federal statutory maximum.' l°\nHowever, a subsequent account of the history of negotiations with Epstein's attorneys,\ndrafted by Villafaila for Acosta several weeks after the September 12, 2007 meeting with the State\nAttorney's Office, stated that \"a significant compromise\" reached at the meeting \"was a reduction\nin the amount of jail time — from [the originally proposed] twenty-four months down to eighteen\nmonths, which would be served at the Palm Beach County Jail rather than a state prison facility.\"\nAcosta also noted to OPR that Villafafta was engaged in a \"tough negotiation,\" and he was willing\nto allow her the discretion to reduce the amount of incarceration time without him \"secondguessing\" her. Acosta acknowledged that he \"clearly approved it at some point.\"\nBased on this record, OPR could not defin\n... [truncated, 2883 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/92 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=92]", "char_count": 2883}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 93, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nD.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 94 of 348\n\nThe Parties Continue to Negotiate but Primarily Focus on a Potential Plea to\nFederal Charges\n\nDuring the remainder of September, Villafafia conducted plea negotiations and drafted the\nfinal NPA, mainly with Epstein attorney Jay Lefkowitz. In a September 13, 2007 email to CEOS\nChief Oosterbaan, Villafafia reported that the plea negotiations were \"getting fast and furious.\"\nShe said that the defense wanted to establish a \"victim's fund\" through which Epstein could make\npayments to the victims, rather than having the victims file individual § 2255 court actions for\ndamages, which she speculated was \"to keep this stuff out of the public [c]ourt files.\"\nAccording to the email documentation, by Friday, September 14, 2007, the parties had\nmoved toward a \"hybrid\" federal plea agreement, incorporating a plea to state charges, which\nwould allow Epstein to serve his sentence for all the charges concurrently in a federal prison.\nVillafafia informed Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and other colleagues that negotiations with Lefkowitz\nhad resulted in a tentative agreement for Epstein to plead to two federal charges: harassment to\nprevent a witness from reporting a crime (18 U.S.C. § I512(d)(2), which was then a one-year\nmisdemeanor), and simple assault on an airplane (18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5), a six-month\nmisdemeanor). Villafafia reported that Lefkowitz \"put in a pitch for only 12 months, I put in a\npitch that [Epstein] plead to 24 with a 20-month recommendation, and we decided that we would\nbe stuck with the 18 months.\"\nLater that day, Villafafia sent to Lefkowitz a draft \"hybrid\" plea agreement and information\nmirroring the agreement in principle she had described to her supervisors, but which she noted had\n\"not yet been blessed\" by them. The agreement provided that Epstein would plead guilty to the\ntwo federal charges for which the parties would jointly recommend that he be sentenced to the\nstatutory maximum pena\n... [truncated, 3752 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/93 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=93]", "char_count": 3752}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 94, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 95 of 348\n\nto the assault charge\" and suggesting a different factual scenario to support a federal charge.\"2 At\nthis point, Sloman left on vacation, and he informed Acosta and Villafafia that in his absence\nLourie had agreed \"to help finalize this.\" Lourie spent the following work week at his new post\nat the Department in Washington, D.C., but communicated with his USAO colleagues by phone\nand email.\nIn a Sunday, September 16, 2007 email, Villafaiia informed Lefkowitz that she had drafted\na factual proffer to accompany a revised \"hybrid\" federal plea proposal. In that email, Villafafia\nalso noted that she was considering filing charges in the federal district court in Miami, \"which\nwill hopefully cut the press coverage significantly.\" This email received considerable attention 12\nyears later when it was made public during the CVRA litigation and was viewed as evidence of\nthe USAO's efforts to conceal the NPA from the victims. Villafafia, however, explained to OPR\nthat she was concerned that news media coverage would violate the victims' privacy. She told\nOPR, \"[I]f [the victims] wanted to attend [the plea hearing], I wanted them to be able to go into\nthe courthouse without their faces being splashed all over the newspaper,\" and that such publicity\nwas less likely to happen in Miami, where the press \"in general does not care about what happens\nin Palm Beach.\"\nLefkowitz responded to Villafafia with a revised version of her latest proposed \"hybrid\"\nplea agreement, in a document entitled \"Agreement.\" Significantly, this defense proposal\nintroduced two new provisions. The first related to four female assistants who had allegedly\nfacilitated Epstein in his criminal scheme. The defense sought a government promise not to\nprosecute them, as well as certain other unnamed Epstein employees, and a promise to forego\nimmigration proceedings against two of the female assistants:\nEpstein's fulfilling the terms and conditi\n... [truncated, 3377 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/94 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=94]", "char_count": 3377}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 95, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 96 of 348\n\nevidence of a violation of the agreement. Epstein and his counsel\nagree that the computers that are currently under [legal process] will\nbe safeguarded in their current condition by Epstein's counsel or\ntheir agents until the terms and conditions of the Agreement are\nfulfilled.\nLater that day, Villafafia sent Lefkowitz a lengthy email to convey two options Lourie had\nsuggested: \"the original proposal\" for a state plea but with an agreement for an 18-month sentence,\nor pleas to state charges and two federal obstruction-of-justice charges. Villafafia also told\nLefkowitz she was willing to ask Acosta again to approve a federal plea to a five-year conspiracy\nwith a Rule 11(c) binding recommendation for a 20-month sentence. Villafafia explained:\nAs to timing, it is my understanding that Mr. Epstein needs to be\nsentenced in the state after he is sentenced in the federal case, but\nnot that he needs to plead guilty and be sentenced after serving his\nfederal time. Andy recommended that some of the timing issues be\naddressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn't obvious to the\njudge that we are trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison\npurposes.\nWith regard to prosecution of individuals other than Epstein, Villafafia suggested standard\nfederal plea agreement language regarding the resolution of all criminal liability, \"and I will\nmention `co-conspirators,' but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes\nand all of the other persons that we could charge.\" Villafafia told OPR that she was willing to\ninclude a non-prosecution provision for Epstein's co-conspirators, who at the time she understood\nto be the four women named in the proposed agreement, because the USAO was not interested in\nprosecuting those individuals if Epstein entered a plea. Villafafia told OPR, \"[W]e considered\nEpstein to be the top ofthe food chain, and we wouldn't have been interested in prosecut\n... [truncated, 3334 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/95 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=95]", "char_count": 3334}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 96, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 97 of 348\n\nfor them to be deported.\"I 14 As to whether the foreign nationals would be removable by virtue of\nhaving committed crimes, Villafafia told OPR she did not consider her role as seeking removal\napart from actual prosecution.\nVillafafia concluded her email to Lefkowitz by expressing disappointment that they were\nnot \"closer to resolving this than it appears that we are,\" and offering to meet the next day to work\non the agreement:\nCan I suggest that tomorrow we either meet live or via\nteleconference, either with your client or having him within a quick\nphone call, to hash out these items? I was hoping to work only a\nhalf day tomorrow to save my voice for Tuesday's hearing . . ., if\nnecessary, but maybe we can set a time to meet. If you want to meet\n\"off campus\" somewhere, that is fine. I will make sure that I have\nall the necessary decision makers present or \"on call,\" as well.\nVillafafia told OPR that she offered to meet Lefkowitz away from the USAO because conducting\nnegotiations via email was inefficient, and Villafafia wanted \"to have a meeting where we sat down\nand just finalized things. And what I meant by off campus is, sometimes people feel better if you\ngo to a neutral location\" for a face-to-face meeting.\nOn the morning of Monday, September 17, 2007, the USAO supervisor who was taking\nover Lourie's duties as manager of the West Palm Beach office asked Villafafia for an update on\nthe plea negotiations, and she forwarded to him the email she had sent to Lefkowitz the previous\naftemoon. Villafaila told the manager, \"As you can see . . there are a number of things in their\nlast draft that were unacceptable. All of the loopholes that I sewed up they tried to open.\"\nShortly thereafter, Villafafia alerted the new manager, Acosta, and Lourie that she had just\nspoken with Lefkowitz, who advised that Epstein was leaning towards a plea to state charges under\na non-prosecution agreement, and she would\n... [truncated, 3421 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/96 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=96]", "char_count": 3421}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 97, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 98 of 348\n\nwe go that route, would you intend to make the deferred [sic] prosecution agreement public?\"\nVillafafia replied that while a federal plea agreement would be part of the court file and publicly\naccessible, the NPA \"would not be made public or filed with the Court, but it would remain part\nof our case file. It probably would be subject to a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request,\nbut it is not something that we would distribute without compulsory process.\"16 Villafafia told\nOPR that she believed Epstein did not want the NPA to be made public because he \"did not want\npeople to believe him to have committed a variety of crimes.\" As she explained to OPR, Villafafia\nbelieved the NPA did not need to be disclosed in its entirety, but she anticipated notifying the\nvictims about the NPA provisions relating to their ability to recover damages.\nE.\n\nThe Parties Appear to Reach Agreement on a Plea to Federal Charges\n\nNegotiations continued the next day, Tuesday, September 18, 2007. Responding to\nVillafaiia's revised draft of the NPA, Lefkowitz suggested that Epstein plead to one federal charge\nwith a 12-month sentence, followed by one year of supervised release with a requirement for home\ndetention and two years of state probation, with the first six months of the state sentence to be\nserved under community control. Villafafia replied, \"I know that the U.S. Attorney will not go\nbelow 18 months of prison/jail time (and I would strongly oppose the suggestion).\" Shortly\nthereafter, Villafafia emailed Acosta, Lourie, and the incoming West Palm Beach manager:\nHi all — I think that we may be near the end of our negotiations with\nMr. Epstein, and not because we have reached a resolution. As I\nmentioned yesterday, I spent about 12 hours over the weekend\ndrafting Informations, changing plea agreements, and writing\nfactual proffers. I was supposed to receive a draft agreement from\nthem yesterday, which never arrived\n... [truncated, 3119 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/97 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=97]", "char_count": 3119}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 98, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 99 of 348\n\ntwelve months, with six served in home confinement, to run\nconsecutively.\nI just received an e-mail asking if Mr. Epstein could just do 12\nmonths imprisonment instead.\nAs you can see, Mr. Epstein is having second thoughts about doing\njail time. I would like to send Jay Lefkowitz an e-mail stating that\nif we do not have a signed agreement by tomorrow at 5:00,\nnegotiations will end. I have selected tomorrow at 5:00 because it\ngives them enough time to really negotiate an agreement if they are\nserious about it, and if not, it gives me one day before the Jewish\nholiday to get [prepared] for Tuesday . . . [September 25] , when I\nplan to [file charges], and it gives the office sufficient time to review\nthe indictment package.\nDo you concur?\nA few minutes later, the incoming West Palm Beach manager emailed Lourie, suggesting that\nLourie \"talk to Epstein and close the deal.\"' 18\nWithin moments, Lourie replied to the manager, with a copy to Villafafia, reporting that he\nhad just spoken with Lefkowitz and agreed \"to two fed[eral] obstruction[] charges (24 month cap)\nwith nonbinding recommendation for 18 months. When [Epstein] gets out, he has to plead to state\noffenses, including against minor, registrable, and then take one year house arrest/community\nconfinement.\" By reply email, Villafafia asked Lourie to call her, but there is no record of whether\nthey spoke.\nF.\n\nDefense Counsel Offers New Proposals Substantially Changing the Terms of\nthe Federal Plea Agreement, which the USAO Rejects\n\nApproximately an hour after Laurie's email reporting the deal he had reached with\nLefkowitz, Lefkowitz sent Villafaila a revised draft plea agreement. Despite the agreement Lourie\nbelieved he and Lefkowitz had reached that morning, Lefkowitz's proposal would have resulted\nin a 16-month federal sentence followed by 8 months of supervised release served in the form of\nhome detention. Lefkowitz also inserted a statement in\n... [truncated, 2845 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/98 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=98]", "char_count": 2845}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 99, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 100 of 348\n\nand had added language waiving the preparation of a presentence investigation (PSI) \"so he can\nkeep all of his information confidential. I have already told Jay that the PSI language . . . was\nunacceptable to our office.\" Of even greater significance, in a follow-up email, Villafafia noted\nthat the defense had removed both the requirement that Epstein plead to a registrable offense and\nthe entire provision relating to monetary damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.\nIn the afternoon, Villafafia circulated her own proposed \"hybrid\" plea agreement, first\ninternally to the management team with a note stating that it \"contains the 18/12 split that Jay and\nAndy agreed to,\" and then to Letkowitz. Regarding the prosecution of other individuals, she\nincluded the following provision: \"This agreement resolves the federal criminal liability of the\ndefendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal\nconduct by those persons known to the [USAO] as of the date of this plea agreement,\" including\nbut not limited to the conspiracy to solicit minors to engage in prostitution.\nIn her email to Lefkowitz, transmitting the plea agreement, Villafatia wrote:\nCould you share the attached draft with your colleagues. It is in\nkeeping with what Andy communicated to me was the operative\n\"deal.\" The U.S. Attorney hasn't had a chance to review all of the\nlanguage, but he agrees with it in principle.\n\n[The West Palm Beach manager] and I will both be available at 2:00.\n... One ofmy suggestions is going to be (again) that we all sit down\ntogether in the same room, including Barry [Krischer] and/or Lanna\n[Belohlavek], so we can hash out the still existing issues and get a\nsigned document.\nVillafafia also emailed Acosta directly, telling him she planned to meet with Epstein's\nattorneys to work on the plea agreement, and asking if Acosta would be available to provide final\napproval. Acosta rep\n... [truncated, 3254 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/99 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=99]", "char_count": 3254}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 100, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 101 of 348\n\nmessage, \"That is fine. [The West Palm Beach manager] and I will nail everything down, we just\nwant to get a final blessing.\"\nNegotiations continued throughout the day on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, with\nVillafafta and Lefkowitz exchanging emails regarding the factual proffer for a plea and the\nscheduling of a meeting to finalize the plea agreement's terms. During that exchange, Villafafta\nmade clear to Lefkowitz that the time for negotiating was reaching an end:\nI hate to have to be firm about this, but we need to wrap this up by\nMonday. I will not miss my [September 25 charging] date when this\nhas dragged on for several weeks already and then, if things fall\napart, be left in a less advantageous position than before the\nnegotiations. I have had an 82-page pros memo and 53-page\nindictment sitting on the shelf since May to engage in these\nnegotiations. There has to be an ending date, and that date is\nMonday.\nEarly that afternoon, Lourie—who was participating in the week's negotiations from his\nnew post at the Department in Washington, D.C.—asked Villafaila to furnish him with the last\ndraft of the plea agreement she had sent to defense counsel, and she provided him with the \"18/12\nsplit\" draft she had sent to Lefkowitz the prior afternoon. After reviewing that draft, Lourie told\nVillafafta it was a \"[g]ood job\" but he questioned certain provisions, including whether the\nUSAO's agreement to suspend the investigation and hold all legal process in abeyance should be\nin the plea agreement. Villafana told Lourie that she had added that paragraph at the \"insistence\"\nof the defense, and opined, \"I don't think it hurts us.\" Villafana explained to OPR that she held\nthis view because \"Alex and people above me had already made the decision that if the case was\nresolved we weren't going to get the computer equipment.\"\nAt 3:44 p.m. that afternoon, Lefkowitz emailed a \"redline\" version of the federal plea\n... [truncated, 3675 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/100 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=100]", "char_count": 3675}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 101, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nG.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 102 of 348\n\nVillafaiia and Lourie Recommend Ending Negotiations, but Acosta Urges\nThat They \"Try to Work It Out\"\n\nIn the late afternoon of Wednesday, September 19, 2007, Villafafia expressed her\nincreasing frustration to her supervisors. She emailed the defense redline version of the plea\nagreement to Lourie and the incoming West Palm Beach manager, identifying all of the provisions\nshe had \"specifically discussed with [the defense team] and rejected, that they have re-inserted into\nthe agreement.\" (Emphasis in original). Villafafia opined, \"This is NOT good faith negotiations.\"\nLourie responded that he would \"reach out to Alex to discuss.\"\nLourie immediately emailed Acosta the following:\nI looked at the latest draft from Jay [Lefkowitz] and I must agree\nwith\n. Based on my own conversations with him, his draft is\nout of left field. He claims to orally agree to our terms and then\nsends us a document that is the opposite. I suggest we simply tell\nhim that his counter offer is rejected and that we intend to move\nforward with our case.\nAcosta replied:\nWhy don't we just call him. Tell him\nI.\n\nYou agree, and then change things.\n\n2.\n\nThat's not acceptable, and is in bad faith. Stop it or we'll\nindict.\n\n3.\n\nTry to work it out.\n\nIt seems that we are close, and it[']s worth trying to overcome what\nhas to be painfully ... annoying negotiating tactics.\nAcosta explained to OPR that he recognized,\n[t]his negotiation was a pain, but if it was the right position, the fact\nthat you've got annoying counsel on the other side doesn't it make\nit less of a right position. You tell them stop being annoying, you\ntry to work it out, and if not, then you indict.\nIn response to Acosta's instruction, Lourie responded, \"Ok will do.\" He also forwarded to\nAcosta the latest version of the USAO draft \"hybrid\" plea agreement that Villafafia had sent to\nLefkowitz the previous day, which Lourie had requested and obtained from Villafafia \n... [truncated, 2312 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/101 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=101]", "char_count": 2312}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 102, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 103 of 348\n\neverything, but I really do not think that Mr. Epstein is going to engage in serious negotiations\nuntil he sees the Indictment and shows up in mag [federal magistrate judge] court.\" She suggested\ncharging Epstein on a federal conspiracy charge, and if he refused to plead to that offense,\nsuperseding with additional charges and going to trial. She complained that after seven weeks of\nnegotiations, \"we are just spinning our wheels.\" Her proposed email to Lelkowitz detailed all of\nthe objectionable provisions in his draft, and concluded, \"If you or your client insists on these,\nthere can be no plea agreement.\"\nH.\n\nAcosta Edits the Federal Plea Agreement, and Villafaila Sends a Final Version\nto the Defense\n\nThe next day, Thursday, September 20, 2007, Villafafia emailed Assistant State Attorney\nBelohlavek and informed her:\nOur deadline is Monday evening for a signed agreement and\narraignment in the federal system. At this time, things don't look\npromising anyway, but I will keep you posted. In their latest draft,\nthey changed what they agreed to plead to in the state from\nsolicitation of minors for prostitution (a registrable offense) to\nforcing adults into prostitution (a non-registrable offense). We will\nnot budge on this issue, so it is looking unlikely that we will reach a\nmutually acceptable agreement. If that changes, I will let you know.\nAcosta sent Lourie \"[s]ome thoughts\" about the USAO version of the proposed \"hybrid\"\nfederal plea agreement he had received from Lourie the evening before, commenting that \"it seems\nvery straightforward\" and \"we are not changing our standard charging language\" for the\ndefense.12° Noting that the draft was prepared for his signature, Acosta told Lourie that he did not\ntypically sign plea agreements and \"this should not be the first,\" adding that the USAO \"should\nonly go forward if the trial team supports and signs this agreement.\"12I Lourie forwarded the email\n... [truncated, 3127 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/102 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=102]", "char_count": 3127}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 103, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nI.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 104 of 348\n\nThe Defense Rejects the Federal Plea Agreement, Returns to the NPA\n\"State-Only\" Resolution, and Begins Opposing the Sexual Offender\nRegistration Requirement\n\nAfter having spent days negotiating the federal charges to be included in a plea agreement,\nby the afternoon of September 20, 2007, the defense rejected the federal plea option, and the parties\nresumed negotiations over the details of an NPA calling for Epstein to plead to only state charges.\nThrough multiple emails and attempts (some successful) to speak directly with Acosta and other\nsupervisors, defense attorneys vigorously fought the USAO's insistence that Epstein plead to a\nstate charge requiring sexual offender registration.\nAfter receiving the federal plea agreement, Lefkowitz spoke with Villafafla. She reported\nto Acosta and Lourie that Lefkowitz told her the defense was \"back to doing the state-chargesonly agreement\" and wanted until the middle of the following week to work out the details, but\nthat she had told defense counsel that \"we need a signed agreement by tomorrow [Friday] or we\nare [filing charges] on Tuesday.\"\nLefkowitz emailed Villafafla about the draft NPA that she had sent to him, pointing out\nthat it called for a 20-month jail sentence followed by 10 months of community control, rather than\n18 months in jail and 12 under community control, and to ask if the USAO had \"any flexibility\"\non the § 2255 procedure. Villafatia responded:\nThe 18 and 12 has already been agreed to by our office, so that is\nnot a problem. On the issue about 18 [U.S.C. §] 2255, we seem to\nbe miles apart. Your most recent version not only had me binding\nthe girls to a trust fund administered by the state court, but also\npromising that they will give up their [§] 2255 rights.\nI reviewed the e-mail that I sent you on Sunday with the comments\non some of your other changes. In the context of a non-prosecution\nagreement, the office may be more will\n... [truncated, 3070 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/103 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=103]", "char_count": 3070}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 104, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 105 of 348\n\nI think Jay [Lefkowitz] will try to talk you out of a registrable\noffense. Regardless of the merits of his argument, in order to get us\ndown in time they made us an offer that included pleading to an\noffense against a minor (encouraging a minor into prostitution) and\ntouted that we should be happy because it was registrable. For that\nreason alone, I don't think we should consider allowing them to\ncome down from their own offer, either on this issue or on time of\nincarceration.\nLefkowitz attempted to reach Acosta that night, but Acosta directed Villafafia to return the\ncall, and told Lourie that he did not want to open \"a backchannel\" with defense counsel. Lourie\ninstructed Villafaiia, \"U can tell [J]ay that [Apex will not agree to a nonregistration offense.\"\nOn the morning of Friday, September 21, 2007, Villafafia emailed Acosta informing him\nthat \"it looks like we will be [filing charges against] Mr. Epstein on Tuesday,\" reporting that the\ncharging package was being reviewed by the West Palm Beach manager, and asking if anyone in\nthe Miami office needed to review it. Villafafia also alerted Lourie that she had spoken that\nmorning to Lefkowitz, who \"was waffling\" about Epstein pleading to a state charge that required\nsexual offender registration, and she noted that she would confer with Krischer and Belohlavek\n\"to make sure the defense doesn't try to do an end run.\"\nThat same morning, Epstein attorney M,\nwho had not been involved in negotiations\nfor several weeks, emailed Sloman, advising, \"[I] want to finalize the plea deal and there is only\none issue outstanding and [I] do not believe that [A]lex has read all the defense submissions that\nwould assist in his determination on this point . . . [U]pon resolution, we will be prepared to sign\nas soon as today.\" From his out-of-town vacation, Sloman forwarded the email to Acosta who\nreplied, \"Enjo[y] vacation. Working with [M]arie on this.\" Sloman a\n... [truncated, 3377 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/104 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=104]", "char_count": 3377}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 105, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 106 of 348\n\nprecluding the government from requesting, initiating, or recommending immigration proceedings\nagainst the two assistants who were foreign nationals.\nAt this point, Lefkowitz again sought to speak to Acosta, who replied by email: \"I am\nhappy to talk. My caveat is that in the middle of negotiations, u try to avoid[] undermining my\nstaff by allowing 'interlocutor[]y' appeals so to speak so I'd want [M]arie on the call[.] I'll have\nher set something up.\"\nVillafafia sent to Lefkowitz her own revised NPA, telling him it was her \"attempt at\ncombining our thoughts,\" but it had not \"been approved by the office yet.\" She inserted solicitation\nof minors to engage in prostitution, a registrable offense, as the charge to which Epstein would\nplead guilty; proposed a joint recommendation for a 30-month sentence, divided into 18 months\nin the county jail and 12 months of community control; and amended the § 2255 provision. 123\nVillafaha's revision retained the provision suspending the investigation and holding all legal\nprocess in abeyance, and she incorporated the non-prosecution provision while slightly altering it\nto apply to \"any potential co-conspirator of Epstein, including\" the four named assistants, and\ndeleting mention of the corporate entity employees. Finally, Villafafia deleted mention of\nimmigration proceedings, but advised in her transmittal email that \"we have not and don't plan to\nask immigration\" proceedings to be initiated. tea\nLater that day, Villafaila alerted Lourie (who had arrived in Florida from Washington, D.C.\nearly that afternoon) and the new West Palm Beach manager (copying her first-line supervisor and\nco-counsel) that she had included language that defense counsel had requested \"regarding\npromises not to prosecute other people,\" and commented, \"I don't think it hurts us.\" There is no\ndocumentation that Lourie, the West Palm Beach manager, or anyone else expressed disagreement\nwit\n... [truncated, 3939 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/105 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=105]", "char_count": 3939}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 106, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 107 of 348\n\nfederal court. Sloman similarly said that he had the impression that the non-prosecution provision\nwas meant to protect named co-conspirators who were also victims, \"in a sense,\" of Epstein's\nconduct. Although later press coverage of the Epstein case focused on Epstein's connection to\nprominent figures and suggested that the non-prosecution provision protected these individuals,\nSloman told OPR that it never occurred to him that the reference to potential co-conspirators was\ndirected toward any of the high-profile individuals who were at the time or subsequently linked\nwith Epstein.125 Acosta did not recall the provision or any discussions about it. He speculated\nthat if he read the non-prosecution provision, he likely assumed that Villafafia and Lourie had\n\"thought this through\" and \"addressed it for a reason.\" The West Palm Beach manager, who had\nonly limited involvement at this stage, told OPR that the provision was \"highly unusual,\" and he\nhad \"no clue\" why the USAO agreed to it.\nVillafafia told OPR that, apart from the women named in the NPA, the investigation had\nnot developed evidence of \"any other potential co-conspirators. So, . . . we wouldn't be\nprosecuting anybody else, so why not include it? . . . I just didn't think that there was anybody\nthat it would cover.\" She conceded, however, that she \"did not catch the fact that it could be read\nas broadly as people have since read it.\"\nK.\n\nThe USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender\nRegistration Requirement\n\nOn the afternoon of Friday, September 21, 2007, State Attorney Krischer informed\nVillafafia that Epstein's counsel had contacted him and Epstein was ready to agree \"to all the\nterms\" of the NPA—except for sexual offender registration. According to Krischer, defense\ncounsel had proposed that registration be deferred, and that Epstein register only if state or federal\nlaw enforcement felt, at any point during his s\n... [truncated, 3683 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/106 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=106]", "char_count": 3683}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 107, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 108 of 348\n\nAt some point that day, Acosta spoke with Lefkowitz by phone regarding the need for\nEpstein to plead to a registrable offense. Throughout the weekend, with Villafafia's Monday\ndeadline looming, defense counsel pressed hard to eliminate the sexual offender requirement. On\nSaturday, September 22, 2007,\nsent a series of emails to Lourie. In the first, she provided\ndetails from a press report about a Florida public official who the previous day had pled guilty to\nchild sex abuse charges and was sentenced to a term of probation. She noted that she \"spoke to\n[M]att [Menchel]\" and asked Lourie to call her. Two hours later she sent Lourie a second, lengthy\nemail, strongly objecting to the registration requirement, and outlining \"all arguments against\nregistration [as a sexual offender] in this case.\" In this email,\nclaimed that there had been\na \"miscommunication\" during the September 12, 2007 meeting, and that \"we only agreed to the\nsolicitation with minors because we believed and [Krischer] and [Belohlavek] confirmed it was\nNOT registrable.\"\ncomplained that lifetime sexual offender registration was a \"life\nsentence\" that was \"uncalled for,\" \"does not make sense,\" and was \"inappropriate\" to impose\n\"simply [because] the FBI wants it, in return for all there [sic] efforts.\" She listed numerous\nreasons why Epstein should not have to register, including his lack of a prior record or history of\nsexual offenses; the lack of any danger of recidivism; the ease with which he could be \"tracked\"\nwithout registering; and that it would be \"virtualatible to comply\" with four separate state\nregistration requirements. A few minutes later,\nsent Lefcourt's phone number to Lourie\n\"in case you want to speak to him directly.\"\nIn another email sent less than two hours later,\ntold Lourie she was writing again\nbecause \"you are a very fair person. This resolution in the Epstein case is not reasonable. [I]t is a\nresult of a mis\n... [truncated, 3640 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/107 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=107]", "char_count": 3640}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 108, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 109 of 348\n\nLefkowitz set forth arguments similar to those\nhad presented to Lourie, as to why\nregistration \"based on the facts alleged in this case ... simply does not make sense.\" In the event\nthat Acosta did not agree to their proposed charges, Lefkowitz offered as an alternative \"to stipulate\nthat the state offense\" would \"constitute a prior sexual offense for purposes of enhanced recidivist\nsentencing\" should Epstein ever again commit a federal sex offense against minors. As Lefkowitz\nfurther argued, \"By accepting this option, you would be substituting the certainty of recidivist\nsentencing for the humiliation of registration.\" Emails reflect that, early that afternoon, Acosta,\nLourie, and Villafafia discussed the matter in a conference call.\nLefkowitz also sent a revised version of the NPA to Villafafia that omitted identification of\nthe charge to which Epstein would plead guilty. Later that day, Lefkowitz emailed Acosta:\nI got a call from [M]arie who said you had rejected our proposal.\nDoes that mean you are not even prepared to have [Epstein] commit\nnow to plead to the registerable offense near the end of his 18 month\nsentence and then be sentenced to 12 month[s] community control\nfor that charge? I thought that was exactly what you proposed\n[F]riday (although you wanted, but were not able, to do it with some\nkind of federal charge).\nBut that still gives you a registerable sex offense, 30 months total,\nand 18 in jail.\nHow can that not satisfy you—while still ensuring that [E]pstein is\nnot unduly endangered in jail?\nAcosta responded, \"I do not mean to be difficult, but our negotiations must take place with the\nAUSAs assigned to the case.\" Acosta added that he had spoken with Lourie and Villafafia, and\nthey had \"discretion to proceed as they believe just and appropriate.\" Acosta copied Villafafia,\nand she emailed Acosta to thank him \"for the support.\"\nL.\n\nThe Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause\n\nThr\n... [truncated, 2914 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/108 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=108]", "char_count": 2914}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 109, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 110 of 348\n\nThe parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of\nany public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of\nInformation Act request or any compulsory process commanding\nthe disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein\nbefore making that disclostre. 12s\nVII.\n\nSEPTEMBER 24, 2007: ACOSTA MAKES FINAL EDITS, AND THE NPA IS\nSIGNED\n\nThe contemporaneous emails show that Villafafia continued to update Acosta as the parties\nnegotiated the final language and that Acosta reviewed and edited the NPA. Shortly after midnight\non Monday, September 24, 2007, Acosta sent Villafafia \"[s]mall edits\" to the \"final\" NPA she had\nsent to him. Among his changes was language modifying provisions that appeared to require the\nState Attorney's Office or the state court to take specific actions, such as requiring that Epstein\nenter his guilty plea by a certain date. Acosta explained in his email, \"I'm not comfortable with\nrequiring the State Attorney to enter into a [joint sentencing] recommendation\" or \"requiring a\nState court to stick with our timeline\" for entry of the guilty plea and sentencing. Accordingly,\nAcosta substituted language that required Epstein alone to make a binding sentencing\nrecommendation to the state court, and required Epstein to use his \"best efforts\" to enter his guilty\nplea and be sentenced by the specified dates. Acosta also instructed Villafafia to restore a reference\nto Epstein's wish \"to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liabilities.\" Lourie,\nwho had returned to the Department in Washington, D.C., had a phone conversation with\nLefkowitz and sent additional comments on the final draft to Acosta and Villafafia. Villafafia sent\na new revision, incorporating edits from Acosta and Lourie, to Lefkowitz later that morning.\nOn the afternoon of September 24, 2007, Villafafia circulated the new \"final\" version of\nthe NPA to Acosta, Sloman,\n... [truncated, 3182 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/109 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=109]", "char_count": 3182}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 110, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 111 of 348\n\nagreement. I know that Andy promised Chief Reiter an update when\na resolution was achieved.. . . [The West Palm Beach manager] is\ncalling, but [he] knows not to tell Chief Reiter about the money\nissue, just about what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and\nthe amount of time that has been agreed to. [He] also is telling Chief\nReiter not to disclose the outcome to anyone.\nOPR questioned Villafaila about this email. She explained that she generally kept\nconfidential the terms of the resolution of any case. She understood that \"the way that the [Epstein]\ncase was resolved\" needed to remain confidential, but the victims could be informed about what\nhappened because by the NPA's terms, they needed to know what the agreement was about.\nVillafaiia emailed the West Palm Beach manager, asking him to tell PBPD Chief Reiter\n\"the good news\" but \"leave out the part about damages,\" and explained that she wanted to meet\nwith the victims herself to explain how the damages provision would work. Villafaila also told\nhim that Lourie had asked that Reiter share information about the NPA only with the PBPD\nDetective who had led the state investigation of Epstein.'\" Villafafia forwarded to Acosta, Lourie,\nand the West Palm Beach manager Lefkowitz's email asking that the USAO try to keep the NPA\nfrom becoming public. Acosta responded that the agreement \"already binds us not to make public\nexcept as required by law under [the Freedom of Information Act],\" and asked, \"[W]hat more does\nhe want?\" Villafafia replied, \"My guess is that if we tell anyone else (like the police chief or FBI\nor the girls), that we ask them not to disclose.\" Soon thereafter, Acosta emailed Lourie, Villafafia,\nand the West Palm Beach manager to set up a call to discuss \"who we tell and how much,\" adding,\n\"Nice job with a difficult negotiation.\"\nThe final NPA, as signed by Epstein, his attorneys Lefcourt and M,\ncontained the following perti\n... [truncated, 3118 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/110 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=110]", "char_count": 3118}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 111, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 112 of 348\n\nit had identified as victims.13' The USAO, with the good faith approval of\nEpstein's counsel, would select an attorney representative for the victims,\nwhom Epstein would pay.\nTiming:\n\nEpstein would make his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced\nby October 26, 2007. The USAO had no objection to Epstein self-reporting\nto begin serving his sentence by January 4, 2008.\n\nImmunity:\n\nThe USAO would not initiate criminal charges against \"any potential\nco-conspirator of Epstein,\" including four named personal assistants.\n\nOther:\n\nEpstein was obligated to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's\nOffice to ensure compliance with this agreement.\nEpstein waived his right to appeal.\nEpstein agreed that he would not be afforded any benefits with respect to\ngain time or other rights, opportunities, and benefits not available to any\nother inmate.\nThe federal investigation would be suspended and all pending legal process\nheld in abeyance unless and until Epstein violated any term of the\nagreement. Evidence \"requested by or directly related to\" the pending legal\nprocess, \"including certain computer equipment,\" would be kept inviolate\nuntil all the NPA terms had been satisfied.\n\nBreach:\n\nThe USAO would be required to notify Epstein of any alleged breach of the\nagreement within 90 days of the expiration of the term of home\nconfinement, and would be required to initiate prosecution within 60 days\nthereafter.\n\nDisclosure:\n\nThe parties \"anticipate[d]\" that the agreement would not be made part of\nany public record, and if the USAO received a Freedom of Information Act\nrequest or compulsory process commanding disclosure of the agreement, it\nwould provide notice to Epstein before making any disclosure. i32\n\nThat evening, Leflcowitz emailed Lourie to express concern about the notification he\nunderstood would be given to Chief Reiter, stating, \"I am very concerned about leaks unduly\nprejudicing Jeff\n... [truncated, 2880 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/111 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=111]", "char_count": 2880}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 112, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 113 of 348\n\nthis matter.\" Lourie responded with an assurance that the Reiter notification was only \"so he does\nnot find out about it in the paper,\" and he concluded: \"I enjoyed it as well. Mr. Epstein was\nfortunate to have such excellent representation.\"\nVIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS\nAlmost immediately after the NPA was signed, conflicts arose about its terms, and the\ndifficult negotiation process began anew. The USAO quickly realized that there were numerous\nissues concerning the monetary damages provision that were not resolved in the NPA, and the\nparties differed in their interpretations of the § 2255 provision, in particular the role and duties of\nthe attorney representative for the victims. As negotiations regarding the damages provision\ncontinued, the defense was able to delay having Epstein enter his guilty plea in state court.\nA.\n\nSeptember — October 2007: Sloman's Concerns about Selection of an\nAttorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA Addendum\n\nThe first controversy centered on the appointment of an attorney representative for the\nvictims. Initially, Villafafia reached out to a private attorney who was one of several suggested to\nher for that role. Villafaila notified Lefkowitz that she was recommending the attorney to serve as\nthe victims' representative and suggested a phone conference to discuss what information the\nUSAO could disclose to the attorney about the case. Villafaria told Lefkowitz that she had never\nmet the attorney, but he had been recommended by \"a good friend in our appellate section\" and by\none of the district judges in Miami.134 Over the next few days, Villafafta exchanged messages with\nthe attorney about the possibility of his serving as the attorney representative. She also exchanged\nemails with Lefkowitz, passing along procedural questions raised by the attorney.\nBy this time, Lourie had fully transitioned to his detail at the Department's Criminal\nDivision. Sloman, who \n... [truncated, 3697 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/112 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=112]", "char_count": 3697}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 113, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\na proposal\nspecial\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 114 of 348\n\nthe special\nresponsibilities, along with a draft letter to send to the\nexplaining the procedure for selecting an attorney representative.\n\nLefkowitz objected to this proposal in a letter to Villafafia, pointing out that the NPA did\nnot provide for the appointment of a special\n. More importantly, Lefkowitz used the\ndiscussion of the special\nas an opening to press for other alterations to the language of the\nNPA or, at least, to its interpretation. Focusing on the attorney representative, Lefkowitz argued\nthat the attorney's role should be viewed as limited to negotiating settlements and that the attorney\nwas precluded from filing lawsuits on behalf of victims who could not reach a negotiated\nsettlement with Epstein. Lefkowitz proposed:\n[T]he selected attorney should evaluate the claims of each identified\nindividual, negotiate a total fund amount with Mr. Epstein, then\ndistribute the monies based on the strength of each case. For those\nidentified individuals who elect not to settle with Mr. Epstein, they\nmay proceed on their own, but by doing so, they would not be suing\nunder § 2255 as contemplated by [the NPA] and therefore may not\ncontinue to be represented by the selected attorney.\nLefkowitz also objected to Villafafia's draft letter to the special =,\nasserting that it was\nessential for the defense to participate in crafting a \"mutually acceptable communication\" to the\nvictims. Going further, Lefkowitz claimed that any contact between the USAO and the victims\nabout the § 2255 provision would violate the agreement's confidentiality provision. Lefkowitz\nadmonished the government not to contact the victims \"to inform them of the resolution of the\ncase, including [the] appointment of the selected attorney and the settlement process.\"\nVillafafia forwarded Leflcowitz's letter to Sloman, complaining that the defense\ninterpretation of the § 2255 procedure violated the clear languag\n... [truncated, 3587 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/113 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=113]", "char_count": 3587}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 114, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 115 of 348\n\nthat Epstein pay the victims' legal fees incurred from contested litigation would \"trigger profound\nethical problems,\" in that the attorney representative would have an incentive to reject settlement\noffers in order to incur more fees. In addition, Lefkowitz rejected Villafaila's view that Epstein\nhad waived the right to challenge § 2255 liability as to victims who did not want to settle their\nclaims, and contended that any such victims \"will have to prove, among other things, that they are\nvictims under the enumerated statutes.\" Finally, Leflcowitz again argued that the USAO should\nnot discuss the settlement process with the victims who were to be identified as eligible for\nsettlement under § 2255:\nMs. Villafai►a proposes that either she or federal agents will speak\nwith the [victims] regarding the settlement process. We do not think\nit is the government's place to be co-counsel to the [victims], nor\nshould the FBI be their personal investigators. Neither federal\nagents nor anyone from your Office should contact the [victims] to\ninform them of the resolution of the case, including appointment of\nthe attorney representative and the settlement process. Not only\nwould that violate the confidentiality of the Agreement, but\nMr. Epstein also will have no control over what is communicated to\nthe [victims] at this most critical stage. We believe it is essential\nthat we participate in crafting a mutually acceptable communication\nto the [victims]. We further believe that communications between\nyour Office or your case agents and the [victims] might well violate\nRule 6(eX2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The\npowers of the federal grand jury should not, even in appearance, be\nutilized to advance the interests of a party to a civil lawsuit. 137\nLefkowitz concluded, \"I look forward to resolving these open issues with you during our 4:30 call\ntoday.\"138\nVillafaa was at that time on sick leave\n... [truncated, 3048 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/114 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=114]", "char_count": 3048}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 115, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 116 of 348\n\nHowever, as with Villafafla's publicly released emails to Lefkowitz, this meeting between\nAcosta and Lefkowitz drew criticism when the media learned of it during the CVRA litigation. It\nwas seen either as further evidence of the USAO's willingness to meet with Epstein's attorneys\nwhile simultaneously ignoring the victims, or as a meeting at which Acosta made secret\nagreements with the defense.\nTwo letters written later in 2007 refer to the breakfast meeting. In a December 2007 letter\nto M,\nAcosta stated that he had \"sua sponte proposed the Addendum to Mr. Lefkowitz at an\nOctober meeting in Palm Beach . . . . in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a\nlitigious selection process.\"139 In an October 23, 2007 letter from Lefkowitz to Acosta, less than\ntwo weeks after the breakfast meeting, Lefkowitz represented that during the meeting, Acosta\nassured me that [the USAO] would not intervene with the State\nAttorney's Office regarding this matter; or contact any of the\nidentified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil\nclaimants and their respective counsel in this matter; and that neither\n[the USAO] nor the [FBI] would intervene regarding the sentence\nMr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State, so long as the\nsentence does not violate state law.14°\nHowever, two days after receiving this letter, Acosta revised a response letter drafted by\nSloman, adding the term \"inaccurate\" to describe Lefkowitz's claims that Acosta had promised\nnot to intervene with the State Attorney's Office, contact individual witnesses or claimants, or\nintervene regarding Epstein's sentence.101 The draft response stated, \"[S]uch a promise equates to\nthe imposition of a gag order. Our Office cannot and will not agree to this.\"I42\nAcosta told OPR that he did not remember the breakfast meeting, but he speculated that\nthe meeting may have been prompted by defense complaints that Villafafia had re\n... [truncated, 3695 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/115 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=115]", "char_count": 3695}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 116, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 117 of 348\n\nLefkowitz's description of their breakfast meeting discussion, Acosta told OPR that there were\n\"several instances\" in which Lefkowitz and other defense counsel mischaracterized something he\nor an AUSA said, in a way that was misleading.\nEmails show that, immediately after the breakfast, Acosta phoned Sloman, who then\nemailed to Lefkowitz a revision to the Addendum language they had been negotiating and who\nalso later reported to Villafaila that Lefkowitz's \"suggested revision has been rejected.\" Other\nemails show that the parties continued to be at odds about the proposed language for the NPA\naddendum for several days after the breakfast meeting.\nC.\n\nAcosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Postpone Epstein's Guilty Plea; the\nParties Continue to Negotiate Issues concerning the Attorney Representative\nand Finally Reach Agreement on the NPA Addendum\n\nA week after his breakfast meeting with Acosta, Lefkowitz—citing a scheduling conflict—\nsent Acosta an email seeking his agreement to postpone Epstein's entry of his guilty plea in state\ncourt from October 26, 2007, the date agreed to in the NPA, to November 20, 2007. In his email,\nLefkowitz reported that the State Attorney's Office had agreed to the postponement, and he noted\nthat Acosta had said during the breakfast meeting that he \"didn't want to dictate a schedule to the\nstate.\"145 Acosta solicited input from Sloman, who later that day emailed Lefkowitz and agreed\nto the postponement.\nWith Lourie having departed from the USAO, Sloman became more involved in\nnegotiating the NPA addendum than he had been in the negotiations leading to the NPA, and he\nquickly came up against the problem Villafafia and Lourie had faced: the defense attorneys\ncontinued to negotiate provisions to which they had seemingly already agreed. Between October\n12 and 19, 2007, in a series of email exchanges and phone conversations, Acosta, Sloman,\nVillafafia, and Lefkowitz cont\n... [truncated, 3754 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/116 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=116]", "char_count": 3754}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 117, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 118 of 348\n\nOn October 22, 2007, Sloman responded to the issues Lefkowitz had raised, rejecting some\ndefense proposals but agreeing to modify certain language in the proposed addendum to \"satisfy\nyour concern.\"146 Noting that the addendum and a revised letter to the special\nwere\nattached, Sloman ended by stating, \"[T]his needs to be concluded. Alex and I believe that this is\nas far as we can go. Therefore, please advise me whether we have a deal no later than COB\ntomorrow ....\"\nNonetheless, the next day, Lefkowitz sent Acosta a three-page letter reiterating the Epstein\nteam's disagreements with the USAO's interpretation of the NPA. Lefkowitz noted, however, that\nEpstein had \"every intention of honoring the terms of [the NPA] in good faith,\" and that the defense\nletter was not intended to be \"a rescission or withdrawal from the terms of the [NPA].\" Lefkowitz\nadded:\nI also want to thank you for the commitment you made to me during\nour October 12 meeting in which you promised genuine finality with\nregard to this matter, and assured me that your Office would not\nintervene with the State Attorney's Office regarding this matter; or\ncontact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or\npotential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter;\nand that neither your Office nor the [FBI] would intervene regarding\nthe sentence Mr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State,\nso long as that sentence does not violate state law. Indeed, so long\nas Mr. Epstein's sentence does not explicitly violate the terms of the\nAgreement, he is entitled to any type of sentence available to him,\nincluding but not limited to gain time and work release.\nSloman forwarded the letter to Villafafia, commenting, \"Wait [until] you see this one.\"\nVillafafia replied:\nWelcome to my world. I love the way that they want to interpret\nthis agreement.\n\nIt also looks like they are planning to ask for and receive a sen\n... [truncated, 2631 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/117 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=117]", "char_count": 2631}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 118, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 119 of 348\n\nWhy don't we agree to mutual recission [sic] and indict him?\nAcosta also weighed in, sending both Villafaiia and Sloman an email with a subject line\nthat read \"This has to stop,\" in which he stated:\nJust read the letter.\n1.\nWe specifically refused to include the provision saying that\nwe would not communicate. If I recall the conference call, we told\nhim we could not agree to a gag order using those words.\n2.\nThe purpose of the agreement was not an out of court\nsettlement. Seems that they can't take no. Let's talk re how to\ned. I'm not sure we will ever agree on a letter [to the special\nabout how to select an attorney representative] at this point.\n\nm\ni‘\n\nNotwithstanding Acosta's assessment and prediction, after Sloman sent to Leflcowitz a new\ndraft addendum and they spoke by phone, the parties reached agreement on the addendum's\nterms. 147\nOn October 25 2007, Sloman sent a letter to the person whom the USAO had selected to\nserve as special\noutlining the special\nduties. A few days later, on October 29,\n2007, Epstein and his attorneys Lefcourt and\nsigned the NPA addendum.108 Villafaiia's\nname was printed as the USAO representative, but at Villafafta's request, Sloman signed the\naddendum for her on behalf of the USAO.\nVillafafia later emailed Sloman thanking him for \"the advice and the pep talk,\" which\napparently related to the defense attorneys' allegation of impropriety concerning her initial\nselection of the private attorney to assist the victims. Villafafta explained to Sloman:\nThe funny thing is that I had never met (and still haven't met) or\nspoken to [the private attorney] before I asked him if he would be\nwilling to take on this case. . . . But as soon as you mentioned the\nappearance problem, I saw where the problem would arise and\nagreed that the Special\nwould be a safer route. I just worry\nthat the defense's attacks on me could harm the victims.\nSloman responded that defense counsel had \n... [truncated, 2378 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/118 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=118]", "char_count": 2378}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 119, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nD.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 120 of 348\n\nEpstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea\n\nThe addendum did not bring the case to conclusion. Instead, the matter entered a new,\nprotracted phase, which involved the upper echelons of the Department of Justice. Despite the\nfact that Epstein and his attorneys had signed the NPA, they pursued a new strategy of appealing\nto senior Department managers with the goal of setting aside the NPA entirely. Although\nultimately unsuccessful, the strategy delayed the entry of Epstein's guilty plea by months.\nOn October 29, 2007, Villafatia emailed Sloman, raising several issues that she wanted\nSloman to address with Lelkowitz. Among other things, Villafafta pointed out that the NPA\nrequired Epstein to use his \"best efforts\" to comply with the agreement, but he had failed to comply\nwith the timeline established by the NPA when he sought and obtained a plea hearing\npostponement from October 26 to November 20. Responding to Lefkowitz's attempts to limit the\nUSAO's communications with various entities and individuals, Villafafia noted that the USAO\nneeded to be able to communicate with the State Attorney's Office and the victims' attorney \"to\n[e]nsure that Epstein is abiding by the terms of the agreement.\"\nThat same day, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek informed Sloman that the state judge\nassigned to the case had scheduled Epstein's plea and sentence in early January 2008. Belohlavek\nassured Sloman that the \"plea and sentence will definitely occur before the January 4th date that\nwas agreed on by all for the sentencing.\"'\" Nonetheless, emails over the course of the next month\nshow that the USAO, the State Attorney's Office, and defense counsel continued to communicate\nregarding the date of the guilty plea, with the USAO asserting that a proposed January 7, 2008\ndate for the entry of Epstein's guilty plea was \"unacceptable,\" while the defense contended that\nEpstein had not agreed to any date. Finally, after \n... [truncated, 3289 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/119 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=119]", "char_count": 3289}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 120, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 121 of 348\n\nnot recall for OPR the substance of his conversation with Starr, other than that it was likely about\nEpstein's wish to have the Department review the case. 152\nOn November 28, 2007, Stan• requested, by letter, a meeting with Fisher. In his letter, Starr\nargued that the USAO improperly had compelled Epstein to agree to pay civil damages under\n18 U.S.C. § 2255 as part of a state-based resolution of a criminal case. On the same day, Lefkowitz\nemailed Sloman, complaining about the USAO's plan to notify victims about the § 2255 provision\nand alerting Sloman that Epstein's counsel were seeking a meeting with the Assistant Attorney\nGeneral \"to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the section 2255 component\"\nof the NPA. After Lourie sent to Sloman a copy of the Starr letter, Sloman forwarded it to\nVillafafia, asking her to prepare a chronology of the plea negotiations and how the § 2255 provision\nevolved. Villafafta responded that she was \"going through all of the ways in which they have tried\nto breach the agreement to convince you guys to let me indict.\"\nIn Washington, D.C., Lourie consulted with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan, asking for his\nthoughts on defense counsel's arguments. At the same time, at Lourie's request, Villafatia sent\nthe NPA and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan. Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was\n\"not thrilled\" about the NPA; described Epstein's conduct as unusually \"egregious,\" particularly\nbecause of its serial nature; and observed that the NPA was \"pretty advantageous for the defendant\nand not all that helpful to the victims.\" He opined, however, that the Assistant Attorney General\nwould not and should not consider or address the NPA \"other than to say that she agrees with it.\"\nDuring her OPR interview, Fisher did not recall reading Starr's letter or discussing it with\nOosterbaan, but believed the comment about her \"agree[ing] with it\" referred to a federa\n... [truncated, 3443 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/120 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=120]", "char_count": 3443}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 121, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 122 of 348\n\n[S]ince the signing of the September 24th agreement, more than two\nmonths[] ago, it has become clear that several attorneys on your\nlegal team are dissatisfied with that result.\n\n[You], Professor Dershowitz, former Solicitor [General] Starr,\nformer United States Attorney\nand Messrs.\nBlack, Goldberger and Lefcourt previously had the opportunity to\nreview and raise objections to the terms of the Agreement. The\ndefense team, however, after extensive negotiation, chose to adopt\nthe Agreement. Since then counsel have objected to several steps\ntaken by the U.S. Attorney's Office to effectuate the terms of the\nAgreement, in essence presenting collateral challenges to portions\nof the Agreement.\nIt is not the intention of this Office ever to require a defendant to\nenter a plea against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed\nto trial. If your client is dissatisfied with his Agreement, or believes\nthat it is unlawful or unfair, we stand ready to unwind the\nAgreement.\nIn a separate, seven-page letter to Starr, with Villafana's and Sloman's input, Acosta\nresponded to the substance of Starr's November 28 letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher.\nFisher told OPR that she did not recall why Acosta, rather than her office, responded to the letter,\nbut she conjectured that \"probably I was trying to make sure that somebody responded since [the\nCriminal Division wasn't] going to respond.\"'\"\nIn his seven-page letter, sent to Starr on December 4, 2007, Acosta wrote:\nThe Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office\nand Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global\nresolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Under this\nAgreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for\nenumerated sections of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State\nof Florida, provided . . . Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal\ninterests: (I) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to \n... [truncated, 2689 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/121 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=121]", "char_count": 2689}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 122, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 123 of 348\n\nprovision, recounted the history of NPA negotiations, and described the post-signing efforts by\nEpstein's counsel to challenge portions of the NPA. Acosta's letter concluded:\nAlthough it happens rarely, I do not mind this Office's decision\nbeing appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our\nprosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel\nwith the option of appealing our decisions. Indeed, although I am\nconfident in our prosecutors' evidence and legal analysis, I\nnonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts\nin [CEOS] to confirm our interpretation of the law before approving\ntheir [charges]. I am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to\nDepartment Headquarters that raises issues that either have not been\nraised with this Office previously or that have been raised, and in\nfact resolved, in your client's favor.\nI am troubled, likewise, by the apparent lack of finality in this\nAgreement. The AUSAs who have been negotiating with defense\ncounsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics\nused by the defense team. It appears to them that as soon as\nresolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to\nchallenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus far has been\nthat defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the\nclient. That said, there must be closure on this matter. Some in our\nOffice are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to\nmount collateral challenges to provisions of the Agreement, even\nafter Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the\nagreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind.\n\nI would reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force\nthe hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his\nwishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. Although time\nis of the essence . . . I am directing our prosecutors not to issu\n... [truncated, 2956 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/122 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=122]", "char_count": 2956}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 123, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 124 of 348\n\nthe defense \"[f]irst and foremost\" reaffirmed the NPA and that Epstein \"has no intention of\nunwinding the agreement.\"\nOn December 7, 2007—the deadline set by Acosta in his December 4, 2007 letter to Starr—\nthe defense transmitted to the USAO a one-sentence \"Affirmation\" of the NPA and its addendum,\nsigned by Epsteinim\nF.\n\nDespite Affirming the NPA, Defense Counsel Intensify Their Challenges to It\nand Accuse Villafaiia of Improper Conduct\n1.\n\nDecember 7 and 11, 2007: Starr and Lefkowitz Send to Acosta Letters\nand \"Ethics Opinions\" Complaining about the Federal Investigation\nand Villafafia\n\nOn the same day that the defense team sent Epstein's \"Affirmation\" to the USAO, Starr\nand Lefkowitz sent to Acosta two \"independent ethics opinions\"—one authored by prominent\ncriminal defense attorney and former U.S. Attorney Joe Whitley, which assessed purported\nimproprieties in the federal investigation of Epstein, and the other, by a prominent retired federal\njudge and former U.S. Attorney, arguing against the NPA's use of the civil damages recovery\nprovision under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 \"as a proxy for traditional criminal restitution.\"\nDays later, on December II, 2007, Starr sent a letter to Acosta transmitting two lengthy\nsubmissions authored by Lefkowitz presenting substantive challenges to the NPA and to the\n\"background and conduct of the investigation.\" These submissions repeated arguments previously\nraised by the defense but also asserted new issues. In one submission, 20 pages long, Lefkowitz\naddressed the \"improper involvement\" of federal authorities in the investigation and criticized\nVillafaria for a number of alleged improprieties, including having engaged in \"unprecedented\nfederal overreaching\" by seeking to prosecute Epstein federally, \"insist[ing]\" that the State\nAttorney's Office \"charge Mr. Epstein with violations of law and recommend a sentence that are\nsignificantly harsher than what the State \n... [truncated, 3140 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/123 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=123]", "char_count": 3140}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 124, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 125 of 348\n\nNotwithstanding these voluminous submissions, Lefkowitz added that Epstein\n\"unconditionally re-asserts his intention to fulfill and not seek to withdraw from or unwind\" the\nNPA.\n2.\n\nAs a Result of the Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions, the New USAO\nCriminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence, and Acosta\nAgrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel\n\nAfter reviewing Starr's and Lefkowitz's letters, Sloman notified Villafafia that \"in light of\nthe recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence\" he had asked Robert Senior, who had succeeded\nMenchel as Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division, to review de novo the evidence underlying\nthe proposed revised indictment, and Sloman asked Villafafia to provide Senior with all the state\nand FBI investigative materials.\nIn the meantime, Acosta agreed to meet with Starr and other Epstein defense attorneys to\ndiscuss the defense complaints raised in Lefkowitz's December I I, 2007 submissions.156 The\nmeeting took place in Miami on December 14, 2007. The defense team included Starr,\nDershowitz, Lefcourt, and Boston attorney\nWeinberg. The USAO side included Acosta,\nSloman, Villafafia, and another senior AUSA, with the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and\nAssistant Special Agent in Charge also present. In addition to previously raised arguments, during\nthis meeting, Epstein's attorneys raised a new argument—that the state charge to which Epstein\nhad agreed to plead guilty did not apply to the facts of the case.\n3.\n\nThe Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department Review\nof the USAO's Actions\n\nShortly after the December 14, 2007 meeting, Lefkowitz notified Acosta that if the issues\nraised at the meeting could not be resolved promptly, the defense team may \"have no alternative\nbut to seek review in Washington.\" Acosta notified Assistant Attorney General Fisher that the\ndefense team might make an appeal to her, and he asked her to grant such a request for revie\n... [truncated, 3035 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/124 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=124]", "char_count": 3035}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 125, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\n4.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 126 of 348\n\nAcosta Attempts to Revise the NPA § 2255 Language concerning\nMonetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not Accept It\n\nAcosta undertook to respond to defense counsel's continuing concern about the § 2255\nprovision. He sent to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker language that he\nproposed including in a revision to the NPA's § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker\nforwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and\nAcosta that he did not have \"any insight\" to offer. On December 19, 2007, after Acosta and\nSloman had a phone conversation with Starr and Leflcowitz, Acosta sent to\na letter\nproposing to resolve \"our disagreements over interpretation[]\" by replacing the existing language\nof the NPA relating to § 2255 with a provision that would read:\nAny person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an\noffense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255,\nwill have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she\nwould have had, if Mr. Epstein [had] been tried federally and\nconvicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing\nthis paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's\nattorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to\nname ... as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any\njudicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority\ndetermining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet,\nshall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these\nidentified victims in the same position as they would have been had\nMr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less.\nAcosta also noted that he had resisted his prosecutors' urging to declare the NPA breached by the\ndefense delays. ' 57\nLefkowitz responded by letter a few days later, suggesting that Acosta's proposal raised\n\"several troubling questions\" and that \"the problem arises from the \n... [truncated, 3255 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/125 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=125]", "char_count": 3255}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 126, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 127 of 348\n\nscheduled January 4, 2008 plea hearing. As soon became apparent, Acosta was unable to achieve\nan expedited review so that Epstein could plead guilty and be sentenced by\nJanuary 4, 2008, and the plea and sentencing date was rescheduled. On January 2, 2008, Sloman\nspoke with Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek, who confirmed that the change of plea hearing\nhad been postponed. In an email reporting this to Acosta and Villafafta, Sloman said that Epstein's\nlocal defense attorney Goldberger had told Belohlavek the postponement was because the facts\n\"did not fit the proposed state charge,\" and that Belohlavek told Sloman she agreed with that\nassessment. t59 The next day, Villafafta sent to Acosta and Sloman a local newspaper article\nreporting that Epstein's state plea hearing was reset for March and in exchange for it the federal\nauthorities would drop their investigation of him. Acosta also sent to Sloman and Villafacia an\nemail memorializing a statement made to him by Lefkowitz in a phone call that day: \"'I\n[Lefkowitz] may have made a mistake 6 months ago. [Belohlavek] told us solicitation [is] not\nregistrable. It turns out that the actual offense charged is.\"'16°\n5.\n\nJanuary 7, 2008: Acosta and Sloman Meet with\nAdditional Allegations of USAO Misconduct\n\nWho Makes\n\nOn January 7, 2008, Acosta and Sloman met with defense attorne\nat her request.\nAccording to meeting notes made by Sloman, among other things,\nalleged that the\nUSAO's media spokesperson had improperly disclosed details of the Epstein case to a national\nnews reporter, and\n\"suggested that the USAO could avoid any potential ugliness in DC\nby agreeing to a watered-down resolution for Epstein.\" After Acosta excused himself to attend\n\"without a witness a\nanother meeting and Sloman refused to speak further with\nitl\",\nshe left. Later that day, Acosta and Sloman spoke by phone with Stan-, Lefkowitz, and\nwho expressed concern about the \"leak\" to th\n... [truncated, 3681 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/126 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=126]", "char_count": 3681}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 127, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 128 of 348\n\nthat it was to establish whether, if the plea fell apart, he, as Chief, would agree \"that we can go\nforward with\" the charges. He did recall being concerned, after completing the review, that \"we\ndid not have .. . a lot of victims ... lined up and ready to testify\" and that some victims might \"not\nbe favorable for us.\" Nevertheless, he concluded that the proposed charges were sound, and he\ntold Acosta that he would approve proceeding with a federal case.\n6.\n\nAcosta Asks CEOS to Review the Evidence\n\nNotwithstanding Senior's favorable review, Acosta and Sloman told Starr and Lefkowitz\nthat they \"appreciate[d]\" that the defense wanted a \"fresh face\" to conduct a review, and noted that\nthe Criminal Chief had not undertaken the \"in-depth work associated with the issues raised by the\ndefense.\" They told the defense team that Acosta had asked CEOS to \"come on board\" and that\nCEOS Chief Oosterbaan would designate an attorney having \"a national perspective\" to conduct\na fresh review in light of the defense submissions. Oosterbaan assigned a CEOS Trial Attorney\nwho Villafafta understood was to review the case and prepare for trial in the event Epstein did not\n\"consummate\" the NPA. The CEOS Trial Attorney traveled to Florida to review the case\nmaterials, and to meet with Villafafia to discuss the case and interview some of the victims. After\none such meeting, Villafafta wrote to Acosta and Sloman:\nWe just finished interviewing three of the girls. I wish you could\nhave been there to see how much this has affected them.\nOne girl broke down sobbing so that we had to stop the interview\ntwice within a 20 minute span. She regained her composure enough\nto continue a short time, but she said that she was having nightmares\nabout Epstein coming after her and she started to break down again,\nso we stopped the interview.\nThe second girl . . . told us that she was very upset about the 18\nmonth deal she had read about \n... [truncated, 3034 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/127 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=127]", "char_count": 3034}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 128, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 129 of 348\n\nthese victim issues as insurmountable but, based on these alone, the CEOS Trial Attorney\nconsidered a potential prosecution of Epstein to be a \"crap shoot.\" In addition, she told OPR that\nthere were novel legal issues in the case that also presented difficulties, although she believed these\ndifficulties could be overcome. Shortly after the CEOS Trial Attorney met with the victims,\nhowever, \"things just stopped\" when Oosterbaan instructed her to cease her involvement in the\ncase and CEOS engaged in the Criminal Division review sought by Epstein's defense team.\nIX.\n\nFEBRUARY —JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW\n\nEpstein's defense attorneys sought a broad review from the Department, one that would\nencompass the defense complaints about federal jurisdiction, specific terms in the NPA, and the\nvarious allegations of professional misconduct by USAO attorneys and other personnel. The\nDepartment, however, only reviewed the issue of federal jurisdiction and never reviewed the NPA\nor any specific provisions.' 2 Nonetheless, the process took several months as the defense\nappealed first to CEOS and the Department's Criminal Division, and then to the Office of the\nDeputy Attorney General. The chart set forth on the following page shows the positions and\nrelationships among the individuals in those offices involved in communicating with the USAO\nor defense beginning in November 2007 or in those offices' reviews, which continued through\nJune 2008.\n\n162\nOn February 28, 2008, USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior sent to the Civil Rights Division written\nnotification of the USAO's \"ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter\" involving Epstein and others \"that\nmay result in charges of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591.\" USAM § 8-3.120 required a U.S. Attorney to notify the\nCivil Rights Division, in writing, \"[alt the outset of a criminal investigation . . . that may implicate federal criminal\ncivil rights st\n... [truncated, 3605 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/128 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=128]", "char_count": 3605}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 129, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 130 of 348\n\nCriminal Division\n\nOffice of the Deputy\nAttorney General\n\nAlice Fisher\n\nMark Filip\n\nAssistant Attorney\nGeneral\n\nDeputy Attorney\nGeneral\n\nAndrew lourie\n\n*\n\nJohn Roth\nSenior Associate\nDeputy Attorney\nGeneral\n\nPrincipal Deputy\nAssistant Attorney\nGeneral\n\nSigal Mandelker\nDeputy Assistant\nAttorney General\n\nAndrew\nOosterbaan\nChief, CEOS\n\n*\n\nUntil late Feb. 2008\n\nA.\n\nFebruary — May 15, 2008: Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division\n\nOn February 21, 2008, soon after the CEOS Trial Attorney met with victims, Oosterbaan\nspoke with Lefkowitz about CEOS's role. In a subsequent email to Villafafia, Sloman, and Senior,\nOosterbaan explained:\nI told [Lefkowitz] that all I want to do is help the process move\nforward, and if they think we best help the process by taking a fresh\nand objective look at the case and their arguments [then] that is what\nI want to do. I told him that if that's what they want — if that is what\nwill help the process to move forward — then I don't think it's\nadvisable for CEOS to partner with the USAO on the case. He wants\nto think about that (and probably talk to his co-counsel about\n104\n\nEFTA02830905\n\n", "char_count": 1200}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 130, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 131 of 348\n\nwhether it is better to have us partnered in the case or just serve a\nreview function) and he said he'd get back to me later today.\nOosterbaan told OPR that this email reflects that he likely told Acosta that he intended to\nlimit CEOS's role to review only, and Acosta asked him to \"make sure the defense is okay with\nthat,\" to preempt a possible defense complaint about CEOS's involvement in the review.\nOosterbaan explained to OPR that \"the defense ke[pt] bringing up new arguments and new\nproblems and [the USAO was saying] look if we're going to do this, if you've got a problem with\nit, tell us now.\"\nBy February 25, 2008, Lefkowitz told Oosterbaan, who informed Sloman, that the CEOS\nrole should be \"review only.\" Lourie had just then left the Department to enter private practice,\nand Oosterbaan continued to keep his direct supervisor, Deputy Assistant Attorney General\nMandelker, informed of the defense team contacts. Sloman emailed Lefkowitz that CEOS was\n\"ready to proceed immediately\" with a review of the matter. Sloman advised Lefkowitz that \"in\nthe event CEOS decides that a federal prosecution should not be undertaken against Mr. Epstein,\nthis Office will close its investigation,\" but that, \"should CEOS disagree with Mr. Epstein's\nposition, Mr. Epstein shall have one week to abide by [the NPA].\" Sloman forwarded this email\nto Villafana, who responded, \"Why would we possibly let him keep the same deal after all he has\nput us through? And after we have discovered 6 new girls . . . .\"\nThe defense soon signaled that the CEOS review would not end Epstein's requests for the\nDepartment's involvement. On February 29, 2008, Lefkowitz requested a defense meeting with\nOosterbaan on March 12, 2008.163 Starr spoke to Assistant Attorney General Fisher and \"made it\nclear that [the defense team would] want an audience with her if [CEOS] decid[ed] to support the\nprosecution.\" On March 6, 2008, Acosta alerted Sl\n... [truncated, 3444 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/130 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=130]", "char_count": 3444}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 131, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 132 of 348\n\nappeal an adverse determination by him within the DOJ. Ken [Starr]\nand I appreciate that you understand this and have no objection to\nour seeking appellate review within DOJ.\nStarr, Lefkowitz, and\nWeinberg attended the March 12, 2008 meeting, as well as\nthe former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS, who had joined the Epstein defense team.\nOosterbaan, Mandelker, and a current CEOS Deputy Chief represented the Department. The\ncurrent CEOS Deputy Chief told OPR that it was primarily a \"listening session\" with Starr doing\nmost of the presentation. Oosterbaan told OPR that he recalled \"some back and forth\" because the\ndefense team was saying \"some outrageous things.\" Both Oosterbaan and his Deputy Chief were\ndisturbed that the former CEOS Principal Deputy Chief, who had been an aggressive advocate for\nchild exploitation prosecutions, was supporting the defense position, although according to the\nCEOS Deputy Chief, the former Principal Deputy Chief gave only a \"weak pitch\" that was not\neffective.\nAfter the meeting, Starr and Lefkowitz made multiple written submissions to the Criminal\nDivision. One submission provided a lengthy list of USAO actions that \"have caused us serious\nconcern,\" including the following:\n\"Federal involvement in a state criminal prosecution without any\ncommunication with state authorities\"; I64\nthe issuance of legal process and document requests for items that\n\"had no connection to the conduct at issue\";\nthe nomination \"of an individual closely associated with one of the\nAssistant United States Attorneys involved in this case\" to serve as\nthe victims' attorney representative;\nthe \"insistence\" on a victim notification letter inviting the victims to\nmake sworn statements at Epstein's sentencing; and\nthe purported existence of a \"relationship\" between Sloman and a\nlaw firm representing several of the alleged victims in civil suits\nagainst Epstein.165\n\n164\nThis complaint appeared to be\n... [truncated, 3094 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/131 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=131]", "char_count": 3094}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 132, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 133 of 348\n\nIn another letter, Starr renewed the defense accusation that the USAO improperly disclosed\ninformation about the case to the media, and accused Sloman and Villafafia of \"encouraging civil\nlitigation\" against Epstein. Finally, in a letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher on\nMay 14, 2008, Starr thanked her for having spoken with him the previous day, reiterated the\ndefense team's various complaints, and asked her to meet with him, Lefkowitz, and Whitley.\nMeanwhile, Oosterbaan's Deputy Chief drafted a decision letter to be sent from Oosterbaan\nto Lefkowitz, and over the course of several weeks, it was reviewed by and received input from\nDeputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Fisher, as well as\nthe Criminal Division's Appellate Section (regarding certain legal issues) and Office of\nEnforcement Operations (regarding the Petite policy). Oosterbaan told OPR that, notwithstanding\nthe defense submissions on a wide variety of issues and complaints, CEOS's review was limited\nto determining whether there was a basis for a federal prosecution of Epstein.\nOosterbaan's letter, sent to Lefkowitz on May 15, 2008, notified the defense team that\nCEOS had completed its independent evaluation of whether prosecution of Epstein for federal\ncriminal violations \"would contradict criminal enforcement policy interests.\" The letter specified\nthat CEOS's review addressed the \"narrow question\" of whether a legitimate basis existed for a\nfederal prosecution, and that CEOS did not conduct a de novo review of the facts, analyze issues\nrelating to federal statutes that did not pertain to child exploitation, or review the terms of the NPA\nor the prosecutorial misconduct allegations. The letter stated that based on its examination of the\nmaterial relevant to its limited review of the matter, CEOS had concluded that \"federal prosecution\nin this case would not be improper or inappropriate\" an\n... [truncated, 3990 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/132 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=132]", "char_count": 3990}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 133, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 134 of 348\n\nfederal prosecution is not appropriate in this case.\"168 Leflcowitz alluded to the possibility of\nseeking further review of the matter by the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General, should\nthe defense be unable to \"resolve this matter directly with\" Acosta.\nAcosta declined the request to respond personally and directed Lefkowitz to communicate\nwith the \"trial team.\" That same day, Sloman sent Lefkowitz a letter asking that all further\ncommunication about the case be made to Villafafia or her immediate supervisor, and reiterating\nthat Acosta would not respond personally to counsel's email or calls. Sloman noted that the USAO\nhad \"bent over backwards to exhaustively consider and re-consider\" Epstein's objections, but\n\"these objections have finally been exhausted.\" Sloman advised that the USAO would terminate\nthe NPA unless Epstein complied with all of its terms by the close of business on\nJune 2, 2008.\nB.\n\nMay — June 23, 2008: Review by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General\n\nAlso on May 19, 2008, Starr and Whitley co-authored a letter to Deputy Attorney General\nMark Filip asking for review \"of the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter.\"169 In\nthe letter, they acknowledged that CEOS had recently completed \"a very limited review\" of the\nEpstein case, but contended that \"full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of\nthe Justice Department.\" They argued that federal prosecution of Epstein was \"unwarranted,\" and\nthat \"the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the [NPA] are beyond\nany reasonable interpretation of the scope of a prosecutor's responsibilities.\" They followed up\nwith a second letter on May 27, 2008, in which they asserted \"the bedrock need for integrity in the\nenforcement of federal criminal laws\" and \"the profound questions raised by the unprecedented\nextension of federal laws ... to a prominent public figure wh\n... [truncated, 3860 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/133 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=133]", "char_count": 3860}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 134, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 135 of 348\n\nDivision forwarded to Roth the prior defense submissions, describing them as \"an enormous\namount of material\" regarding the Epstein matter. On June 3, 2008, Sloman sent to Roth a lengthy\nletter from Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General, recounting in detail the history of negotiations\nwith Epstein's counsel culminating in the NPA, and addressing Epstein's claims of professional\nmisconduct. Among the documents submitted with the letter were the prosecution memorandum,\none of the proposed char in documents, and the NPA with its addendum and Acosta's\nDecember 19, 2007 letter to\nAs the review was ongoing in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, State Attorney\nKrischer mentioned to the USAO's West Palm Beach manager that Krischer and Epstein's local\ndefense attorney Jack Goldberger had arrived at a resolution of Epstein's case that would involve\na 90-day jail term, but Krischer provided no further information. Upon learning of this, Villafafia\nwrote to her immediate supervisor: \"Please tell me that you are joking. Maybe we should throw\nhim [Epstein] a party and tell him we are sorry to have bothered him.\" Villafitfia and her immediate\nsupervisor later had phone and email exchanges with Krischer and with Epstein's local counsel to\ninsist that the state plea comply with the terms of the NPA, or \"we will consider it a breach of the\nagreement and proceed accordingly.\"17I\nDeputy Attorney General Filip told OPR he had never heard of Epstein before receiving\nStarr's letter. Following the office's standard protocol, Starr's letter was handled by John Roth,\nan experienced senior federal prosecutor who had served some years before as an AUSA in the\nUSAO. Roth also told OPR that he had never before heard of Epstein. Roth explained to OPR\nthat he did not conduct an independent investigation, interview witnesses, or meet with Epstein's\ncounsel, and instead limited his review to written materials submitted \n... [truncated, 3733 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/134 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=134]", "char_count": 3733}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 135, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 136 of 348\n\nOn Monday, June 23, 2008, Roth sent a brief letter to Starr and Lefkowitz informing them\nthat the office had \"completed a thorough review\" of the USAO's handling of the Epstein matter\nand did not believe intervention by the Deputy Attorney General was warranted in view of the\n\"considerable discretion\" vested by the Department in U.S. Attorneys. He added, \"Even if we\nwere to substitute our judgment for that of the U.S. Attorney, we believe that federal prosecution\nof this case is appropriate.\"\nImmediately after receiving a copy of Roth's letter, Villafafta notified defense counsel that\nEpstein would have until close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the NPA\nby entering his guilty plea, being sentenced, and surrendering to begin serving his sentence. On\nJune 26, 2008, Roth alerted the Office of the Attorney General that Epstein's counsel might try to\ncontact the Attorney General to request additional review and urged the Attorney General not to\ntake defense counsel's calls. Roth told OPR that he was concerned that Epstein's team would try\nto take a further appeal in order to delay resolution of the case.\nMeanwhile, Starr sent a concluding email to Acosta, acknowledging they had reached \"the\nend of a long and arduous road\" and adding, \"While I am obviously very unhappy at what I believe\nis the government's treatment ofmy client, a man whom I have come to deeply admire, I recognize\nthat we have filed and argued our `appellate motions' and lost... . I would like to have . .. some\nclosure with you on this matter so that in the years to come, neither of us will harbor any ill will\nover the matter.\"\nX.\n\nJUNE 2008 - JUNE 2009: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS PLEAS AND SERVES HIS\nCUSTODIAL SENTENCE\n\nOn Friday, June 27, 2008, Villafafta renewed her requests to Epstein's local attorneys\nGoldberger and Black for a copy of the state plea agreement reached with the State Attorney's\nOffice, noting that t\n... [truncated, 3679 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/135 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=135]", "char_count": 3679}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 136, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 137 of 348\n\nThe next day, Villafafta asked Goldberger to change the plea agreement by inserting the\nword \"imprisoned\" after \"6 months,\" and Goldberger agreed to do so. Villafatia, however, did not\nask that the agreement be amended to clarify that the reference to \"the Palm Beach County\nDetention Facility\" meant the jail, rather than the Stockade. The final signed plea agreement form\nfurther clarified the sentence, providing that after serving 12 months in the Palm Beach County\nDetention Facility, Epstein would be \"sentenced to 6 months in the Palm Beach County Detention\nFacility . . . to be served consecutive to the 12 month sentence,\" followed by \"12 months\nCommunity Control.\" The word \"imprisoned\" was hand written after \"6 months\" but then crossed\nout and replaced by \"jail sentence.\"'\"\nA.\n\nJune 30, 2008: Epstein Enters His Guilty Pleas in State Court\n\nEpstein, with his attorney Jack Goldberger, appeared in Palm Beach County court on\nJune 30, 2008, and entered guilty pleas to the indictment charging him with one felony count of\nsolicitation of prostitution and to a criminal information charging him with one felony count of\nprocurement of a minor to engage in prostitution.\"4 At the plea hearing, which Villafatla and the\nFBI case agent attended as spectators, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek did not proffer the facts\nof the case; instead she only recited the charging language in the indictment and the criminal\ninformation:\n[B]etween August 1, 2004 and October 31, 2005, the defendant in\nPalm Beach County did solicit or procure someone to commit\n[prostitution] on three or more occasions. And . . . between\nAugust 1, 2004 and October 9, 2005, the defendant did procure a\nminor under the age of 18 to commit prostitution in Palm Beach\nCounty also. \"5\nThe court found this to be \"a sufficient factual basis to support the pleas,\" and engaged in\na colloquy with Belohlavek regarding Epstein's victims:\nThe Court:\n\nAr\n... [truncated, 2862 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/136 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=136]", "char_count": 2862}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 137, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 138 of 348\n\nThe Court:\n\nAre all the victims in both these cases in\nagreement with the terms of the plea?\n\nMs. Belohlavek:\n\nI have spoken to several myself and I have\nspoken to counsel, through counsel as to the\nother victim, and I believe, yes.\n\nThe Court:\n\nAnd with regard to the victims under age\neighteen, is that victim's parents or guardian\nin agreement with the plea?\n\nMs. Belohlavek:\n\nThat victim is not under age 18 any more and\nthat's why we spoke with her counsel.\n\nThe Court:\n\nAnd she is in agreement with the plea?\n\nMs. Belohlavek:\n\nYes.176\n\nWhen the court asked if the plea was \"in any way tied to any promises or representations\nby any civil attorneys or other jurisdictions,\" Goldberger and Belohlavek, with Epstein present,\nspoke with the judge at sidebar and disclosed the existence of the \"confidential\" non-prosecution\nagreement with the USAO, and the court ordered that a copy ofit be filed under seal with the court.\nAfter the court accepted Epstein's guilty pleas, and imposed sentence on him pursuant to\nthe plea agreement, Epstein was taken into custody to begin serving his sentence immediately.\nIn the aftermath of the plea, numerous individuals familiar with the investigation expressed\npositive reactions to the outcome, and Villafafta received several congratulatory messages.\nOosterbaan wrote, \"Congratulations, M\n—at long last! Your work on this matter was truly\nexceptional, and you obtained a very significant result that will serve the victims well.\" One senior\ncolleague who was familiar with the case noted, \"This case only resolved with the filthy rich bad\nguy going to jail because of your dedication and determination.\" Another wrote, \"If it had not\nbeen for you, he would have gotten away with it.\" The CEOS Trial Attorney who had worked\nbriefly with Villafafia told her, \"But for your tenacity, he'd be somewhere wining another child's\nlife.\" One victim's attorney stated, \"[great job of not lettin\n... [truncated, 3001 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/137 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=137]", "char_count": 3001}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 138, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 139 of 348\n\nDershowitz, Lefkowitz and Starr.\"177 In that same later public statement, Acosta noted that he\nreceived communications from Dershowitz, Starr, and Lefkowitz, who \"all sought to make peace\"\nwith him; Acosta referred to it as \"a proud moment.\"\nOn July 7, 2008, an Epstein victim filed an emergency petition against the Department, in\nfederal court in Miami, alleging violation of her rights under the CVRA; a second victim joined\nthe petition soon thereafter. The history of the litigation and issues relating to it are discussed in\nChapter Three of this Report.\nB.\n\nEpstein Is Placed on Work Release\n\nA few days after Epstein's guilty plea, Villafafia reported to Sloman that Epstein was\nincarcerated at the low-security Stockade, rather than the Main Detention Center where county\nprisoners were usually housed. She also told Sloman that according to the Sheriff's Office, Epstein\nwas eligible for work release. Although the USAO had made clear that it expected Epstein to be\nincarcerated 24 hours a day, every day, the subject of work release had not been addressed\nexplicitly during the NPA negotiations, and the NPA itself was silent on the issue. Epstein's\nacceptance into the work release program as a convicted sexual offender was seen by many as\nanother special benefit given to Epstein. Because the decision to allow Epstein into the work\nrelease program was made by the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office, OPR did not investigate whether\nany state, county, or Sheriff's Office rules were violated. OPR did examine the USAO's\nconsideration of work release prior to signing the NPA and its subsequent unsuccessful efforts to\nensure that Epstein remained incarcerated 24 hours a day.\nThe first specific reference to work release was made weeks after the NPA was signed,\nwhen Lefkowitz asserted, in his October 23, 2007 letter to Acosta, that, \"so long as Mr. Epstein's\nsentence does not explicitly violate the terms of the [NPA]\n... [truncated, 3507 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/138 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=138]", "char_count": 3507}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 139, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 140 of 348\n\nuntil after Epstein completed his sentence, but that Krischer would oppose such a petition \"if it is\nin the agreement.\" t79 On November 16, 2007, the case agents met with Belohlavek and asked if\nthe State Attorney's Office would oppose a request that Epstein be granted work release.\nBelohlavck was noncommittal, and when the agents asked that she include language in the state's\nplea agreement prohibiting Epstein from participating in work release, she responded that she\nwould have to discuss the issue with the State Attorney.Is° Krischer later told OPR that work\nrelease was \"within the control of the Sheriff's Office, not my office.\" The state's plea agreement\nwith Epstein did not address the issue of work release.\nThe day after Epstein entered his June 30, 2008 plea, Villafafia and her immediate\nsupervisor met with a Palm Beach Sheriff's Office official to discuss work release. According to\nVillafafia, the official told them, \"Epstein would be eligible for work release and will be placed on\nwork release,\" a statement that contradicted the information the case agents had been given by a\njail supervisor the previous November, as well as statements made by defense attorney Jack\nGoldberger to Villafafia just days before the plea was entered, when he \"specifically told\n[Villafafia] that [Epstein] would not get work release.\" Villafafia alerted the Sheriff's Office\nofficial that although Epstein told the court during his plea proceeding that he had worked \"every\nday\" for a \"couple of years\" at the \"Florida Science Foundation,\" that entity did not even exist\nuntil November 2007.181 Moreover, the address Epstein provided to the court for the \"Florida\nScience Foundation\" was the office of Epstein's attorney Jack Goldberger. Villafafia and her\nsupervisor asked that the Sheriff's Office notify the USAO if Epstein applied for work release.\nAcosta told OPR that he was aware Villafatia was trying to ensure t\n... [truncated, 3932 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/139 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=139]", "char_count": 3932}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 140, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 141 of 348\n\nfor up to 12 hours per day, six days per week, to work at the \"Florida Science Foundation\" office\nin West Palm Beach.\"2 In mid-November 2008, Villafafia learned that Epstein was on work\nrelease. She notified Acosta, Sloman, and the USAO Criminal Division Chief of this development\nin an email, and asked, \"Can I indict him now?\"\nOn November 24, 2008, Villafafia sent defense attorney Black a letter, notifying him that\nthe USAO believed Epstein's application to and participation in the work release program\nconstituted a material breach of the NPA. Villafafia reminded Black that she had \"more than a\ndozen e-mails\" expressing the USAO's \"insistence\" that Epstein be incarcerated for 18 months,\nand that her June 27, 2008 letter to counsel made clear that this meant \"confinement for twentyfour hours a day.\" Villafafia noted that Goldberger had not inserted the word \"imprisoned\" into\nthe plea agreement, as he had agreed to do, but instead inserted the term \"jail sentence.\" Villafafia\ntold counsel:\nThe [USAO's] Agreement not to prosecute Mr. Epstein was based\nupon its determination that eighteen months' incarceration (i.e.,\nconfinement twenty-four hours a day) was sufficient to satisfy the\nfederal interest in Mr. Epstein's crimes. Accordingly, the U.S.\nAttorney's Office hereby gives notice that Mr. Epstein has violated\nthe [NPA] by failing to remain incarcerated twenty-four hours a day\nfor the eighteen-month term of imprisonment. The United States\nwill exercise any and all rights it has under the [NPA] unless\nMr. Epstein immediately ceases and desists from his breach of this\nagreement.\nAccording to Villafafia, the FBI case agent spoke with the Stockade's work release\ncoordinator and reported back that that the work release coordinator told her he had been led to\nbelieve the government knew Epstein had applied for the program, and that he had been threatened\nwith legal action if he did not allow Epstein to\n... [truncated, 3214 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/140 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=140]", "char_count": 3214}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 141, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 142 of 348\n\nFlorida law treated work release as part of confinement; and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's\nOffice had discretion to grant work release to any inmate. Black also claimed that Acosta\n\"recognized that Mr. Epstein might serve a portion of his sentence through the Work Release\nProgram\" and pointed out that the December 6, 2007 draft victim notification letter sent to\nLefkowitz for review specifically referred to the victim's right to be notified \"if [Epstein] is\nallowed to participate in a work release program.\"\nOn December 3, 2008, in advance of a scheduled meeting with Black, Villafafia sent\nSloman and Criminal Division Chief Senior an email about Epstein's participation in the work\nrelease program:\nIt appears that, since Day 1, Goldberger and Krisher [sic] .. . have\nbeen scheming to get Epstein out on work release. For example, the\nindictment incorrectly charges Epstein for an offense that would\nhave made him ineligible for work release if it had been charged\ncorrectly. (Remember that Krisher [sic] also went along with letting\nus believe that Epstein was pleading to a registrable offense when\nEpstein's folks and Krisher [sic] believed that . . . the offense was\nnot registrable.) Krisher [sic] and Goldberger also told us that\nEpstein would be housed at the Palm [Beach County] Jail, not the\nStockade, but he would not have been eligible for work release if at\nthe jail....\nAs part of his work release, Epstein has hired off-duty Sheriff's\ndeputies to provide him with \"protection.\" It appears that he is\npaying between $3000 and $4100 per week for this service, despite\nthe work release rules barring anyone from the Sheriff's Office (and\nthe Sheriff's Office itself) from having \"any business transactions\nwith inmates . .. while they are in the custody or supervision of the\nSheriff . . . .\"\nVillafafia added that she and her immediate supervisor believed that the USAO \"should not budge\non the 24-hour-a-d\n... [truncated, 3269 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/141 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=141]", "char_count": 3269}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 142, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 143 of 348\n\nthe Sheriff's Office that Epstein's duties required him to work six days a week for 12 hours per\nday. Finally, Villafafia pointed out that Epstein's purported \"supervisor\"—who as the\nFoundation's vice president was subordinate to Epstein, the Foundation's president—had\npromised to alert the Sheriff's Office if Epstein failed to comply with his work schedule, but the\n\"supervisor\" lived and worked in the New York metropolitan area and was unable to monitor\nEpstein's activities on a day-to-day basis. The Sheriff's Office neither acknowledged nor\nresponded to Villafafia's letter.\nIn March 2009, Sloman met in Miami with Dershowitz for, as Dershowitz characterized it\nin a subsequent email, \"a relaxed drink and conversation,\" which included a discussion of the\nEpstein case. After that encounter, Dershowitz emailed Sloman, expressing appreciation for\nSloman's \"assurance that the feds will not interfere with how the Palm Beach sheriff administers\"\nEpstein's sentence \"as long as he is treated like any similarly situated inmate.\" Sloman responded:\nRegarding Mr. Epstein, the United States Attorney's Office will not\ninterfere with how the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office administers the\nsentence imposed by the Court. That being said, this does not mean\nthat the USAO condones or encourages the PBSO to mitigate the\nterms and conditions ofhis sentence. Furthermore, it does not mean\nthat, if contacted for our position concerning alternative custody or\nin-home detention, we would not object. To be clear, if contacted\nwe will object. Naturally, I also expect that no one on behalf of\nMr. Epstein will use my assurance to you to affirmatively represent\nto PBSO that the USAO does not object to an alternative custody or\nhome detention.\nA week later, Dershowitz emailed Sloman again, this time expressing appreciation for\nSloman's \"willingness to call the sheriff and advise him that your office would take no position\non how h\n... [truncated, 3008 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/142 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=142]", "char_count": 3008}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 143, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 144 of 348\n\ncooperation.'\nWhen Villafafia spoke with attorneys in the Eastern District of New York,\nhowever, an AUSA there told Villafafia that \"[t]hey had never heard of\" Epstein, and he had not\ncooperated with the Bear Steams case.'\" During her OPR interview, Villafafia told OPR that to\nher knowledge, the rumor of Epstein's cooperation was \"completely false.\"\nVillafafia and the USAO continued to monitor Epstein's compliance with the terms of the\nNPA. In August 2009, Villafafia alerted her supervisors that Epstein was in apparent violation of\nhis home detention—he had been spotted walking on the beach, and when stopped by the police,\nhe claimed that he was walking \"to work\" at an office nearly eight miles from his home. Villafafia\npassed this information along to the Palm Beach County probation office.188 By letter dated\nSeptember I, 2009, Black wrote to Sloman seeking the USAO's agreement to transfer supervision\nof the community control phase of Epstein's sentence to the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein\nmaintained his \"primary residence.\" In response, Villafafia notified Black that the USAO opposed\nsuch a request and would view it as a violation of the NPA. Three months later, Sloman met with\nDershowitz and, among other issues, informed him that the USAO opposed early termination of\nEpstein's community control supervision and would object to a request to transfer Epstein's\nsupervision to the U.S. Virgin Islands.\nAfter serving his year on home detention in Florida, Epstein completed his sentence on\nJuly 21, 2010.\n\n186\n\nSee \"Out of Prison.\" New York Post, July 23, 2009.\n\n187\n\nThe New York AUSA had emailed Villafatia, \"We're the prosecutors in [the Bear Steams case] . . . . We\nsaw the below article from the New York Post and wanted to ask you about this defendant, Epstein, who we had never\nheard of until this morning. We've since learned that he is pretty unsavory.\" Villafaria reported to Sloman and other\n... [truncated, 2777 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/143 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=143]", "char_count": 2777}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 144, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 145 of 348\n\nCHAPTER TWO\nPART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS\nI.\n\nOPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK\n\nOPR finds professional misconduct when an attorney intentionally violates or acts in\nreckless disregard of a known, unambiguous obligation imposed by law, rule of professional\nconduct, or Department regulation or policy. In determining whether an attorney has engaged in\nprofessional misconduct, OPR uses the preponderance of the evidence standard to make factual\nfindings.\nAn attorney intentionally violates an obligation or standard when the attorney (1) engages\nin conduct with the purpose of obtaining a result that the obligation or standard unambiguously\nprohibits; or (2) engages in conduct knowing its natural or probable consequence, and that\nconsequence is a result that the obligation or standard unambiguously prohibits. An attorney acts\nin reckless disregard of an obligation or standard when (1) the attorney knows or should know,\nbased on his or her experience and the unambiguous nature of the obligation or standard, of an\nobligation or standard; (2) the attorney knows or should know, based on his or her experience and\nthe unambiguous applicability of the obligation or standard, that the attorney's conduct involves a\nsubstantial likelihood that he or she will violate, or cause a violation of, the obligation or standard;\nand (3) the attorney nonetheless engages in the conduct, which is objectively unreasonable under\nall the circumstances. Thus, an attorney's disregard of an obligation is reckless when it represents\na gross deviation from the standard of conduct that an objectively reasonable attorney would\nobserve in the same situation.\nIf OPR determines that an attorney did not engage in professional misconduct, OPR\ndetermines whether the attorney exercised poor judgment, engaged in other inappropriate conduct,\nmade a mistake, or acted appropriately under all the circumstances. An attorney exercises poor\njudgment when\n... [truncated, 3457 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/144 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=144]", "char_count": 3457}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 145, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 146 of 348\n\naffirmative steps the attorney reasonably believed were required to comply with an obligation or\nstandard.\nII.\n\nAPPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT\nA.\n\nThe United States Attorneys' Manual\n\nAmong its many provisions, the United States Attorneys' Manual (USAM) includes\ngeneral statements of principles that summarize appropriate considerations to be weighed, and\ndesirable practices to be followed, by federal prosecutors when discharging their prosecutorial\nresponsibilities.\"' The goal of the USAM is to promote \"the reasoned exercise of prosecutorial\nauthority and contribute to the fair, evenhanded administration of the Federal criminal laws,\" and\nto promote public confidence that important prosecutorial decisions will be made \"rationally and\nobjectively on the merits of each case.\" USAM § 9-27.001.\nBecause the USAM is designed to assist in structuring the decision-making process of\ngovernment attorneys, many of its principles are cast in general terms, with a view to providing\nguidance rather than mandating results. Id.; see also USAM § 9-27.120, comment (\"It is expected\nthat each Federal prosecutor will be guided by these principles in carrying out his/her criminal law\nenforcement responsibilities .... However, it is not intended that reference to these principles will\nrequire a particular prosecutorial decision in any given case.\"); USAM § 9-27.110, comment\n(\"Under the Federal criminal justice system, the prosecutor has wide latitude in determining when,\nwhom, how, and even whether to prosecute for apparent violations of Federal criminal law.\").\nHowever, USAM § 9-27.130 provides that AUSAs who depart from the principles of federal\nprosecution articulated in the USAM may be subject to internal discipline. In particular, USAM\n§ 9-27.130 states that each U.S. Attorney should establish internal office procedures to ensure that\nprosecutorial decisions are made at an appropriate level of responsibility an\n... [truncated, 3351 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/145 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=145]", "char_count": 3351}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 146, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 147 of 348\n\nhim/her by an agency unless a statute provides otherwise.\" Whenever a U.S. Attorney closes a\ncase without prosecution, the file should reflect the action taken and the reason for it. USAM\n§ 9-27.220 sets forth the grounds to be considered in making the decision whether to commence\nor decline federal prosecution. A federal prosecutor should commence or recommend prosecution\nif he or she believes that admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a\nconviction of a federal offense, unless (I) the prosecution would serve no federal interest; (2) the\nperson is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or (3) there exists an adequate\nalternative to prosecution. A comment to this provision indicates that it is the prosecutor's task to\ndetermine whether these circumstances exist, and in making that determination, the prosecutor\n\"should\" consult USAM §§ 9-27.230, 9-27.240, or 9-27.250, as appropriate.\nUSAM § 9-27.230 sets forth a non-exhaustive list of considerations that a federal\nprosecutor should weigh in determining whether a substantial federal interest would be served by\ninitiating prosecution against a person:\n1.\n\nFederal law enforcement priorities;19°\n\n2.\n\nThe nature and seriousness of the offense;191\n\n3.\n\nThe deterrent effect of prosecution;\n\n4.\n\nThe person's culpability in connection with the offense;\n\n5.\n\nThe person's history with respect to criminal activity;\n\n6.\n\nThe person's willingness to cooperate in the investigation\nor prosecution of others; and\n\n7.\n\nThe probable sentence or other consequences if the person\nis convicted.\n\nThe USAM contemplates that, on occasion, a federal prosecutor will decline to open a case\nin deference to prosecution by the state in which the crime occurred. USAM § 9-27.240 directs\nthat in evaluating the effectiveness of prosecution in another jurisdiction, the federal prosecutor\nshould weigh \"all relevant considerations,\" in\n... [truncated, 2912 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/146 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=146]", "char_count": 2912}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 147, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 148 of 348\n\nSome offenses, even though in violation of Federal law, are of\nparticularly strong interest to the authorities of the state or local\njurisdiction in which they occur, either because of the nature of the\noffense, the identity of the offender or victim, the fact that the\ninvestigation was conducted primarily by state or local\ninvestigators, or some other circumstance. Whatever the reason,\nwhen it appears that the Federal interest in prosecution is less\nsubstantial than the interest of state or local authorities,\nconsideration should be given to referring the case to those\nauthorities rather than commencing or recommending a Federal\nprosecution.\nAnother comment cautions that in assessing whether to defer to state or local authorities, \"the\nFederal prosecutor should be alert to any local conditions, attitudes, relationships or other\ncircumstances that might cast doubt on the likelihood of the state or local authorities conducting a\nthorough and successful prosecution.\"\nUSAM § 9-27.260 identifies impermissible considerations relating to the decision whether\nto initiate or decline a federal prosecution. Specifically, the decision may not be based on\nconsideration of the person's race, religion, sex, national origin, or political association, activities,\nor beliefs; the prosecutor's \"own personal feelings\" about the person or the victim; or the possible\neffect of the decision on the prosecutor's own professional or personal circumstances. When\nopting to decline federal prosecution, the prosecutor should ensure that the reasons for that decision\nare communicated to the investigating agency and reflected in the office files. USAM § 9-27.270.\n2.\n\nUSAM § 9-2.031: The Petite Policy\n\nAlthough the Constitution does not prohibit prosecutions of a defendant by both state and\nfederal authorities, even when the conduct charged is identical in both charging jurisdictions, the\nDepartment has a long-standing policy\n... [truncated, 3305 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/147 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=147]", "char_count": 3305}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 148, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 149 of 348\n\nthat come within the national investigation and prosecution priorities established\nby the Department are more likely to satisfy this requirement than other matters.\n(2)\n\nThe prior prosecution must have left the substantial federal interest \"demonstrably\nunvindicated.\" In general, the Department presumes that a prior prosecution has\nvindicated federal interests, but that presumption may be overcome in certain\ncircumstances. As relevant here, the presumption may be overcome when the\nchoice of charges in the prior prosecution was based on factors such as\nincompetence, corruption, intimidation, or undue influence. The presumption may\nbe overcome even when the prior prosecution resulted in a conviction, if the prior\nsentence was \"manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved and a\nsubstantially enhanced sentence—including forfeiture and restitution as well as\nimprisonment and fines-is available through the contemplated federal\nprosecution.\"\n\n(3)\n\nThe government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal\noffense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and\nsustain a conviction.\n\nHowever, the satisfaction of the prerequisites does not require a prosecutor to proceed with a\nfederal investigation or charges nor is the Department required to approve the proposed\nprosecution.\nThe Petite policy cautions that whenever a matter involves overlapping federal and state\njurisdiction, federal prosecutors should consult with their state counterparts \"to determine the most\nappropriate single forum in which to proceed to satisfy the substantial federal and state interests\ninvolved.\" If a substantial question arises as to whether the Petite policy applies to a particular\nprosecution, the prosecutor should submit the matter to the appropriate Assistant Attorney General\nfor resolution. Prior approval from the appropriate Assistant Attorney General mu\n... [truncated, 3345 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/148 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=148]", "char_count": 3345}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 149, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 150 of 348\n\ndefendant's criminal conduct, has an adequate factual basis, makes likely the imposition of an\nappropriate sentence and order of restitution, and does not adversely affect the investigation or\nprosecution of others. USAM § 9-27.420 specifies:\nIn determining whether it would be appropriate to enter into a plea\nagreement, the attorney for the government should weigh all\nrelevant considerations, including:\n1.\nThe defendant's willingness to cooperate in the\ninvestigation or prosecution of others;\n2.\nThe defendant's history with respect to criminal\nactivity;\n3.\nThe nature and seriousness of the offense or offenses\ncharged;\n4.\nThe defendant's remorse or contrition and his/her\nwillingness to assume responsibility for his/her conduct;\n5.\nThe desirability of prompt and certain disposition of\nthe case;\n6.\n\nThe likelihood of obtaining a conviction at trial;\n\n7.\n\nThe probable effect on witnesses;\n\n8.\nThe probable sentence or other consequences if the\ndefendant is convicted;\n9.\nThe public interest in having the case tried rather\nthan disposed of by a guilty plea;\n10.\n\nThe expense of trial and appeal;\n\nII.\nThe need to avoid delay in the disposition of other\npending cases; and\n12.\n4.\n\nThe effect upon the victim's right to restitution.\n\nUSAM Provisions Relating to Non-Prosecution Agreements\n\nUSAM § 9-27.600 authorizes government attorneys to enter into a non-prosecution\nagreement in exchange for a person's cooperation. The provision explains that a non-prosecution\nagreement is appropriate for this purpose when, in the prosecutor's judgment, the person's timely\ncooperation \"appears to be necessary to the public interest and other means of obtaining the desired\ncooperation are unavailable or would not be effective.\" A comment to this provision explains that\nsuch \"other means\" include seeking cooperation after trial and conviction, bargaining for\n124\n\nEFTA02830925\n\n", "char_count": 1952}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 150, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 151 of 348\n\ncooperation as part of a plea agreement, or compelling cooperation under a \"use immunity\" order.\nThe comment observes that these alternative means \"are clearly preferable to permitting an\noffender to avoid any liability for his/her conduct\" and \"should be given serious consideration in\nthe first instance.\" USAM §§ 9-27.620 and 9-27.630 set forth considerations a prosecutor should\ntake into account when entering into a non-prosecution agreement. Generally, the U.S. Attorney\nhas authority to approve a non-prosecution agreement. USAM § 9-27.600 comment. However,\nUSAM § 9-27.640 directs that a government attorney should not enter into a non-prosecution\nagreement in exchange for a person's cooperation without first obtaining the approval of the\nappropriate Assistant Attorney General, or his or her designee, when the person is someone who\n\"is likely to become of major public interest.\"\nThese USAM provisions do not address the uses of non-prosecution agreements in\ncircumstances other than when needed to obtain cooperation.\n5.\n\nUSAM Provisions Relating to Grants of Immunity\n\nNothing in the USAM directly prohibits the government from using the criminal exposure\nof third parties in negotiating with a criminal defendant. Instead, the provision that addresses\nimmunity relates only to the exchange of limited immunity for the testimony of a witness who has\nasserted a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See USAM §§ 9-23.100 et seq.\n6.\n\nUSAMJC.F.R. Provisions Relating to financial Conflicts of Interest\n\nDepartment employees are expected to be aware of, and to comply with, all ethics-related\nlaws, rules, regulations, and policies. See, generally, USAM § 1-4.000 et seq. Specifically, a\ngovernment attorney is prohibited by criminal statute from participating personally and\nsubstantially in any particular matter in which he has a financial interest or in which such an\ninterest can be imputed to h\n... [truncated, 3419 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/150 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=150]", "char_count": 3419}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 151, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 152 of 348\n\nprosecutors adhere to the principles and objectives\" of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the\nSentencing Guidelines, and the PROTECT Act \"in their charging, case disposition, and sentencing\npractices.\"'\"\nThe Ashcroft Memo directed that, \"in all federal cases, federal prosecutors must charge\nand pursue the most serious, readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts of\nthe case,\" except as authorized by an Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney, or designated\nsupervisory authority in certain articulated limited circumstances. The Ashcroft Memo cautioned\nthat a charge is not \"readily provable\" if the prosecutor harbors a good faith doubt, based on either\nthe law or the evidence, as to the government's ability to prove the charge at trial. The Ashcroft\nMemo explains that the \"basic policy\" \"requires federal prosecutors to charge and pursue all\ncharges that are determined to be readily provable\" and would yield the most substantial sentence\nunder the Sentencing Guidelines.\nThe policy set forth six exceptions, including a catch-all exception that permits a prosecutor\nto decline to pursue readily provable charges \"in other exceptional circumstances\" with the written\nor otherwise documented approval of an Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney, or \"designated\nsupervisory attorney.\" As examples of circumstances in which such declination would be\nappropriate, the Ashcroft Memo cites to situations in which a U.S. Attorney's Office is\n\"particularly over-burdened,\" the trial is expected to be of exceptionally long duration, and\nproceeding to trial would significantly reduce the total number of cases the office could resolve.\nThe Ashcroft Memo specifically notes that \"(c)harges may be declined . . . pursuant to a plea\nagreement only to the extent consistent\" with the policies established by the Memo.\nOn January 28, 2005, Deputy Attorney General James Comey issued a memorandum\nen\n... [truncated, 3821 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/151 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=151]", "char_count": 3821}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 152, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 153 of 348\n\nflexibility to decline to bring a particular charge based on a \"good faith doubt\" that the law or\nevidence supports the charge.\n2.\n\nDepartment Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens\n\nOn April 28, 1995, the Attorney General issued a memorandum to all federal prosecutors\nentitled \"Deportation of Criminal Aliens:' directing federal prosecutors to actively and directly\nbecome involved in the process of removing criminal aliens from the United States. In pertinent\npart, this memorandum notes that prosecutors can make a major contribution to the expeditious\ndeportation of criminal aliens by effectively using available prosecution tools for dealing with\nalien defendants. These tools include (1) stipulated administrative deportation orders in\nconnection with plea agreements; (2) deportation as a condition of supervised release under\n18 U.S.C. § 3853(d); and (3) judicial deportation orders pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d). The\nmemorandum further directs:\nAll deportable criminal aliens should be deported unless\nextraordinary circumstances exist. Accordingly, absent such\ncircumstances, Federal prosecutors should seek the deportation of\ndeportable alien defendants in whatever manner is deemed most\nappropriate in a particular case. Exceptions to this policy must have\nthe written approval of the United States Attorney.\nSee also USAM § 9-73.520. A \"criminal alien\" is a foreign national who has been convicted of a\ncrime. 196\nStipulated administrative deportation orders can be based \"on the conviction for an offense\nto which the alien will plead guilty,\" provided that the offense is one of those enumerated in\n8 U.S.C. § 1251 as an offense that causes an alien to be deported. Under 8 U.S.C.\n§ 1251(a)(2XA)(i), any alien who is convicted of a crime of \"moral turpitude\" within five years\nafter the date of entry (or 10 years in the case of an alien provided lawful permanent resident\nstatus), and is either \n... [truncated, 3101 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/152 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=152]", "char_count": 3101}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 153, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 154 of 348\n\nthe prosecutor indicted him on more serious charges. Hayes was thereafter convicted and\nsentenced under the new indictment. The state court of appeals rejected Hayes's challenge to his\nconviction, concluding that the prosecutor's decision to indict on more serious charges was a\nlegitimate use of available leverage in the plea-bargaining process. Hayes filed for review of his\nconviction and sentence in federal court, and although Hayes lost at the district court level, the\nU.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that the prosecutor's conduct constituted\nimpermissible vindictive prosecution.\nThe Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's ruling. The Court opined that \"acceptance\nof the basic legitimacy of plea bargaining necessarily implies rejection of any notion that a guilty\nplea is involuntary in a constitutional sense simply because it is the end result of the bargaining\nprocess.\" Id. at 363. A long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe a crime has been\ncommitted, \"the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a\ngrand jury, rests entirely in his discretion.\" Id. at 364 (emphasis added). The Court explained that\nselectivity in enforcement of the criminal law is not improper unless based upon an unjustifiable\nstandard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. Id.\nThese principles were reiterated in Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985), a case\ninvolving the government's policy of prosecuting only those individuals who reported themselves\nas having failed to register with the Selective Service system. The petitioner in Wayte claimed\nthat the self-reported non-registrants were \"vocal\" opponents of the registration program who were\nbeing punished for the exercise of their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court rejected this\nargument, stating that the government has \"broad discretion\" in deciding whom to prosecut\n... [truncated, 3772 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/153 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=153]", "char_count": 3772}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 154, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 155 of 348\n\nwhen prosecutors have used third parties as leverage in plea negotiations. Numerous courts have\nmade clear, however, that a plea is not invalid when entered under an agreement that includes a\npromise of leniency towards a third party or in response toii ar cutor's threat to prosecute a third\nparty if a plea is not entered. See, e.g., United States v.\n909 F.2d 738, 74142 (2d Cir.\n1990) (rejecting claim that plea was involuntary because of pressure placed upon a defendant by\nthe government's insistence that a defendant's wife would not be offered a plea bargain unless he\npled guilty);\nv. Kemp, 760 F.2d 1244, 1248 (11th Cir. 1985) (in order to satisfy \"heavy\nburden\" of establishing that the government had not acted \"in good faith,\" a defendant challenging\nvoluntariness of his plea on grounds that the prosecutor had threatened to bring charges against\nthe defendant's pregnant wife had to establish that government lacked probable cause to believe\nthe defendant's wife had committed a crime at the time it threatened to charge her); Stinson v.\nState, 839 So. 2d 906, 909 (Fla. App. 2003) (\"In cases involving . . . a promise not to prosecute a\nthird party, the government must act in good faith . . . [and] must have probable cause to charge\nthe third party.\").\nThe second context concerns situations in which courts have enforced prosecutors'\npromises of leniency to third parties. For example, in State v. Frazier, 697 So. 2d 944 (Fla. App.\n1997), as consideration for the defendant's guilty plea, the prosecutor agreed and announced in\nopen court that the government would dismiss charges against the defendant's niece and nephew,\nwho had all been charged as a result of the same incident. When the state reneged and attempted\nto prosecute the niece and nephew, the trial court dismissed the charges against them, and the state\nappealed. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that under contract law\n... [truncated, 3408 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/154 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=154]", "char_count": 3408}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 155, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 156 of 348\n\nis subject to all rules of the court.'\" Attorney Admission Rule 6(bX2XA) makes clear that\nattorneys practicing before the court are subject to the Florida Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct\n(FRPC). Moreover, the choice-of-law provisions contained within the relevant state's rules of\nprofessional conduct make the FRPC applicable to their conduct.\n1.\n\nFRPC 4-1.1 — Competence\n\nFRPC 4-1.1 requires that a lawyer provide competent representation to a client.200\nCompetent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation\nreasonably necessary for the representation. A comment to the rule clarifies that the factors\nrelevant to determining a lawyer's competence to handle a particular matter include \"the relative\ncomplexity and specialized nature of the matter, the lawyer's general experience, the lawyer's\ntraining and experience in the field in question, the preparation and study the lawyer is able to give\nthe matter, and whether it is feasible to refer the matter to, or associate or consult with, a lawyer\nof established competence in the field.\" The comment further notes that \"(i]n many instances the\nrequired proficiency is that of a general practitioner.\" With respect to particular matters,\ncompetence requires inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem.\nThe comment to Rule 4-1.1 explains that \"[t]he required attention and preparation are determined\nin part by what is at stake; major litigation and complex transactions ordinarily require more\nextensive treatment than matters of lesser complexity and consequence.\"\n2.\n\nFRPC 4-1.3 — Diligence\n\nFRPC 4-1.3 specifies that a lawyer should act with reasonable diligence and promptness in\nrepresenting a client. A comment to this rule explains, \"A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf\nof a client despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer and take\nwhatever lawful and e\n... [truncated, 3236 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/155 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=155]", "char_count": 3236}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 156, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\n4.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 157 of 348\n\nFRPC 4-8.4 — Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice\n\nFRPC 4-8.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,\ndeceit, or misrepresentation.\nFRPC 4-8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct in connection with the practice\nof law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.\nIn Florida Bar v. Frederick, 756 So. 2d 79, 87 (Fla. 2000), the court noted that FRPC\n4-8.4(d) is not limited to conduct that occurs in a judicial proceeding, but can be applied to\n\"conduct in connection with the practice of law.\" In Florida Bar v. Shankman, 41 So. 3d 166, 172\n(Fla. 2010), for example, an attorney's continuous hiring and firing of firms to assist in the client's\nmatter resulted in delayed resolution of the case and constituted a violation of FRPC 4-8.4(d) due\nto the delay in the administration of justice and the increased costs to the client.20'\n\nOPR also examined FRPC 4-3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor. Nothing in the text of that rule,\nS01\nhowever, was relevant to the issues addressed in this Report. A comment to FRPC Rule 4-3.8 notes that Florida has\nadopted the American Bar Association (ABA) Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to the Prosecution Function.\nThese \"standards,\" however, are not binding rules of conduct but rather provide guidance to prosecutors. Indeed, the\nABA has expressly stated that these standards \"are not intended to serve as the basis for the imposition of professional\ndiscipline, to create substantive or procedural rights for accused or convicted persons, to create a standard of care for\ncivil liability, or to serve as a predicate for a motion to suppress evidence or dismiss a charge.\" OPR does not consider\nthe ABA standards as binding on the conduct of Department prosecutors.\n\n131\n\nEFTA02830932\n\n", "char_count": 1895}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 157, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 158 of 348\n\n[Page Intentionally Left Blank]\n\n132\n\nEFTA02830933\n\n", "char_count": 125}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 158, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 159 of 348\n\nCHAPTER TWO\nPART THREE: ANALYSIS\nI.\n\nOVERVIEW\n\nFollowing the Miami Herald report in November 2018, media scrutiny of and public\nattention to the USAO's handling of its Epstein investigation has continued unabated. At the heart\nof the public's concern is the perception that Epstein's 18-month sentence, which resulted in a 13month term of actual incarceration, was too lenient and inadequately punished Epstein's criminal\nconduct. Although many records have been released as part of civil litigation stemming from\nEpstein's conduct, the public has received only limited information regarding the decision-making\nprocess leading to the signed NPA. As a result, questions have arisen about Acosta and his staff's\nmotivations for entering into the NPA. Publicly released communications between prosecutors\nand defense counsel, the leniency of the sentence, and an unusual non-prosecution provision in the\nNPA have led to allegations that Acosta and the USAO gave Epstein a \"sweetheart deal\" because\nthey were motivated by improper influences, such as their preexisting and personal relationships\nwith his attorneys, or even corrupt influences, such as the receipt of personal benefits from Epstein.\nThrough its investigation, OPR has sought to answer the following core questions: (1) who\nwas responsible for the decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA and for its\nspecific terms; (2) did the NPA or any of its provisions violate Department policies or other rules\nor regulations; and (3) were any of the subjects motivated to resolve the federal investigation by\nimproper factors, such as corruption or favoritism. To the extent that available records and witness\ninterviews shed light on these questions, OPR shows in detail the process that led to the NPA, from\nthe initial complaint to the USAO through the intense and often confusing negotiation process.\nAfter a thorough and detailed examination of tho\n... [truncated, 3363 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/158 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=158]", "char_count": 3363}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 159, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 160 of 348\n\ndifferent points in time, and regarding different decisions. Menchel, for example, participated in\nformulating the USAO's initial written offer to the defense, but he had no involvement with actions\nor decisions made after August 3, 2007. Sloman was absent during part of the most intense\nnegotiations in September 2007 and did not see the final, signed version of the NPA until he\nreturned. Villafafta and Lourie participated in the negotiations, and Lourie either made decisions\nduring the September 12, 2007 meeting with the defense and State Attorney's Office, or at least\nindicated agreement pending Acosta's approval. In any event, whatever the level of Sloman's,\nMenchel's, Lourie's, and Villafafta's involvement, they acted with the knowledge and approval of\nAcosta.\nUnder OPR's analytical framework, an attorney who makes a good faith attempt to\nascertain the obligations and standards imposed on the attorney and to comply with them in a given\nsituation does not commit professional misconduct. Evidence that an attorney made a good faith\nattempt to ascertain and comply with the obligations and standards imposed can include, but is not\nlimited to, the fact that the attorney consulted with a supervisor.202 In this regard, OPR's\nframework is similar to a standard provision of the professional conduct rules of most state bars,\nwhich specify that a subordinate lawyer does not engage in misconduct if that lawyer acts in\naccordance with a supervisory lawyer's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of\nprofessional duty. See, e.g., FRPC 4-5.2(b). Therefore, in addition to the fact that OPR did not\nfind a violation of a clear and unambiguous standard as discussed below, OPR concludes that\nMenchel, Sloman, Laurie, and VillafaIla did not commit professional misconduct with respect to\nany aspect of the NPA because they acted under Acosta's direction and with his approval.\nOPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJEC\n... [truncated, 3745 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/159 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=159]", "char_count": 3745}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 160, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 161 of 348\n\nunambiguous standard or engaged in professional misconduct in developing, negotiating, or\nentering into the NPA, including its addendum.\nA.\n\nU.S. Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or Cases as\nThey Deem Appropriate, and Acosta's Decision to Decline to Prosecute\nEpstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional Misconduct\n\nThe U.S. Attorneys exercise broad discretion in enforcing the nation's criminal laws.2°3\nAs a general matter, federal prosecutors \"are designated by statute as the President's delegates to\nhelp him discharge his constitutional responsibility to `take Care that the Laws be faithfully\nexecuted.'\" United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (quoting U.S. Const. art. II,\n§ 3). Unless based on an impermissible standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary\nclassification, a prosecutor's charging decisions—including declinations—are not dictated by law\nor statute and are not subject to judicial review. See United States v. LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751, 762\n(1997) (\"Such discretion is an integral feature of the criminal justice system, and is appropriate,\nso long as it is not based upon improper factors.\").\nDepartment policy guidance in effect at the time the USAO was handling the Epstein case\nhelped ensure \"the reasoned exercise of prosecutorial authority,\" but did not require \"a particular\nprosecutorial decision in any given case.\" USAM §§ 9-27.001, 9-27.120 (comment). Rather than\nmandating specific actions, the USAM identified considerations that should factor into a\nprosecutor's charging decisions, including that the defendant was \"subject to effective prosecution\nin another jurisdiction.\" USAM § 9-27.220. Importantly, U.S. Attorneys had \"plenary authority\nwith regard to federal criminal matters\" and could modify or depart from the principles set forth\nin the USAM as deemed necessary in the interest of fair and effective law enforcement within their\n... [truncated, 3591 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/160 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=160]", "char_count": 3591}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 161, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 162 of 348\n\nAs the U.S. Attorney, and in the absence of evidence establishing that his decision was\nmotivated by improper factors, Acosta had the \"plenary authority\" under federal law and under the\nUSAM to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate. As discussed in detail below,\nOPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta, or the other subjects, were motivated or\ninfluenced by improper considerations. Because no clear and unambiguous standard required\nAcosta to indict Epstein on federal charges or prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the\nstate, OPR does not find misconduct based on Acosta's decision to decline to initiate a federal\nprosecution of Epstein.\nB.\n\nNo Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta's Use of a\nNon-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation of Epstein\n\nOPR found no statute or Department policy that was violated by Acosta's decision to\nresolve the federal investigation of Epstein through a non-prosecution agreement.\nThe prosecutor's broad charging discretion includes the option of resolving a case through\na non-prosecution agreement or a related and similar mechanism, a deferred prosecution\nagreement. United States v. Fokker Servs. B.Y., 818 F.3d 733 (D.C. Cir. 2016). These agreements\n\"afford a middle-ground option to the prosecution when, for example, it believes that a criminal\nconviction may be difficult to obtain or may result in unwanted collateral consequences for a\ndefendant or third parties, but also believes that the defendant should not evade accountability\naltogether.\" Id. at 738. As with all prosecutorial charging decisions, the choice to resolve a case\nthrough a non-prosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement \"resides fundamentally\nwith the Executive\" branch. Id. at 741.\nOPR found no clear and unambiguous standard in the USAM prohibiting the use of a nonprosecution agreement in the circumstances presented in \n... [truncated, 3644 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/161 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=161]", "char_count": 3644}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 162, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 163 of 348\n\nagreement that did not require Epstein's cooperation nor did the USAM require Acosta to obtain\nDepartmental approval before doing so.\nC.\n\nThe NPA's Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and\nUnambiguous Standards\n\nAlthough Acosta, as U.S. Attorney, had discretion generally to resolve the case through a\nnon-prosecution agreement that deferred prosecution to the state, OPR also considered whether a\nclear and unambiguous standard governed any of the individual provisions of the NPA.\nSpecifically, OPR examined Acosta's decision to permit Epstein to resolve the federal\ninvestigation by pleading guilty to state charges of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution\nand solicitation to prostitution, with a joint, binding recommendation for an 18-month sentence of\nincarceration. Because, as noted above, OPR found no clear guidance applicable to nonprosecution agreements not involving cooperation, OPR examined Departmental policies relating\nto plea offers to assess the propriety of the NPA's charge and sentence requirements. OPR also\nexamined the provision declining to prosecute Epstein's unidentified \"potential co-conspirators,\"\nto determine whether that provision violated Departmental policy regarding grants of immunity.\nFinally, OPR considered whether there was a clear and unambiguous obligation under the\nDepartment's policy regarding the deportation of criminal aliens, which would have required\nfurther action to be taken against the two Epstein assistants who were foreign nationals.\nAfter considering the applicable rules and policies, OPR finds that Acosta's decision to\nresolve the federal investigation through the NPA did not violate any clear and unambiguous\nstandards and that Acosta had the authority to resolve the federal investigation through a state plea\nand through the terms that he chose. Accordingly, OPR concludes that Acosta did not commit\nprofessional misconduct in developin\n... [truncated, 3865 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/162 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=162]", "char_count": 3865}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 163, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 164 of 348\n\nLongstanding Department policy directs prosecutors to require the defendant to plead to the most\nserious readily provable charge consistent with the nature and extent of the defendant's criminal\nconduct, that has an adequate factual basis, is likely to result in a sustainable conviction, makes\nlikely the imposition ofan appropriate sentence and restitution order, and does not adversely affect\nthe investigation or prosecution of others. See USAM §§ 9-27.430, 9-27-300, 9-27.400\n(comment). The genesis of this policy, the Ashcroft Memo, specifically requires federal\nprosecutors to charge and pursue all readily provable charges that would yield the most substantial\nsentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. However, the Ashcroft Memo articulates an important\nexception: a U.S. Attorney or a \"designated supervisory attorney\" may authorize a plea that does\nnot comport with this policy.207 Moreover, the Ashcroft Memo explains that a charge is not\n\"readily provable\" if the prosecutor harbors \"a good faith doubt,\" based on either the law or the\nevidence, as to the government's ability to prove the charge at trial.\nBy its plain terms, the NPA arguably does not appear to satisfy the \"most serious readily\nprovable charge\" requirement. The draft indictment prepared by Villafafta proposed charging\nEpstein with a variety of federal crimes relating to sexual conduct with and trafficking of minors,\nand Epstein's sentencing exposure under the federal guidelines was in the range of 168 to 210\nmonths' imprisonment. The original \"term sheet\" presented to the defense proposed a \"nonnegotiable\" requirement that Epstein plead guilty to three state offenses, in addition to the original\nstate indictment, with a joint, binding recommendation for a two-year term of incarceration.\nInstead, Epstein was permitted to resolve his federal criminal exposure with a plea to the state\nindictment and only one additional state offense, \n... [truncated, 3812 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/163 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=163]", "char_count": 3812}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 164, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 165 of 348\n\nauthority to deviate from the Ashcroft Memo's \"most serious readily provable offense\"\nrequirement.\nAlthough Acosta could not recall specifically how or by whom the decision was made to\nallow Epstein to plead to only one of the three charges identified on the original term sheet, or how\nor by whom the decision was made to reduce the sentencing requirement from two years to 18\nmonths, Acosta was aware of these changes. He reviewed and approved the final NPA before it\nwas signed. Department policy gave him the discretion to approve the agreement, notwithstanding\nany arguable failure to comply with the \"most serious readily provable offense\" requirement.\nFurthermore, the Ashcroft Memo does not appear to preclude a U.S. Attorney from deferring to a\nstate prosecution, so it is not clear that the Memo's terms apply to a situation involving state\ncharges. Accordingly, OPR concludes that the negotiation of an agreement that allowed Epstein\nto resolve the federal investigation in return for the imposition of an 18-month state sentence did\nnot violate a clear and unambiguous standard and therefore does not constitute professional\nmisconduct.\n2.\n\nThe USAO's Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified \"Potential\nCo-Conspirators\" Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous\nDepartment Policy\n\nSeveral witnesses told OPR that they believed the government's agreement not to prosecute\nunidentified \"potential co-conspirators\" amounted to \"transactional immunity,\" which the\nwitnesses asserted is prohibited by Department policy. Although \"use immunity\" protects a\nwitness only against the government's use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of\nthe witness, and is frequently used by prosecutors, transactional immunity protects a witness from\nprosecution altogether and is relatively rare.\nOPR found no policy prohibiting a U.S. Attorney from declining to prosecute third parties\nor providing transactional immunity\n... [truncated, 3180 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/164 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=164]", "char_count": 3180}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 165, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\n3.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 166 of 348\n\nThe NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to Deportation\nof Criminal Aliens\n\nDuring the negotiations, the USAO rejected a defense-offered provision prohibiting the\nUSA'S, from \"request[ing], initiat[ing], or in any way encourag[ing] immigration authorities to\ninstitute immigration proceedings\" against two female assistants. However, OPR considered\nwhether the April 28, 1995 memorandum imposed any obligation on the USAO to prosecute\nEpstein's two female assistants who were known to be foreign nationals—as Villafafia urged in\nher prosecution memorandum—and thus trigger their removal, or conversely, whether it precluded\nthe USAO from agreeing not to prosecute them as part of a negotiated resolution. OPR found\nnothing in the policy that created a clear and unambiguous standard in either regard.\nThe Attorney General's April 28, 1995 memorandum regarding \"Deportation of Criminal\nAliens\" directed federal prosecutors to become involved actively and directly in the process of\nremoving criminal aliens from the United States, and, along with USAM § 9-73.520, provided that\n\"[a]ll deportable criminal aliens should be deported unless extraordinary circumstances exist.\"\nHowever, Epstein's two assistants were not \"deportable\" unless and until convicted of a crime that\nwould have triggered their removal. But neither the policy memorandum nor the USAM imposed\nan obligation on the USAO to prosecute or secure a conviction against a foreign national nor did\neither provision preclude the USAO from declining to prosecute an alien using the same broad\ndiscretion that otherwise applies to charging decisions.\nThe policy guidance also requires \"prompt and close coordination\" with immigration\nofficials in cases involving alien defendants and specifies that prosecutors must notify immigration\nauthorities before engaging in plea negotiations with alien defendants. OPR learned during its\ninvestigation that an IC\n... [truncated, 3508 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/165 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=165]", "char_count": 3508}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 166, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 167 of 348\n\nto prosecute all of Epstein's co-conspirators. These factors are analyzed in the following\ndiscussions throughout this Section of the Report.\nAs a threshold matter, OPR's investigation of the subjects' decisions and actions in the\nEpstein matter uncovered no evidence of corruption such as bribery, gratuity, or illegal political or\npersonal consideration. In addition, OPR examined the extensive contemporaneous documentary\nrecord, interviewed witnesses, and questioned the subject attorneys. The evidence shows three\nsets of issues influenced Acosta's decision to resolve the case through the NPA. The first-of\nmain concern to Acosta—involved considerations of federalism and deference to state authority.\nThe second arose from an assessment by Acosta's senior advisers—Sloman, Menchel, and\nLourie—that the case carried substantial litigation risks, including both witness issues and what\nsome viewed as a novel application of certain federal statutes to the facts of the Epstein case.208\nThe third was Acosta's aim of obtaining a greater measure of justice for victims of Epstein's\nconduct and for the community than that proposed by the state.\nAlthough the NM and the process for reaching it can be criticized, as OPR does, OPR did\nnot find evidence supporting a conclusion that the subjects were motivated by a desire to benefit\nEpstein for personal gain or because of other improper considerations, such as Epstein's wealth,\nstatus, or associations. That is not to say that Epstein received no benefit from his enormous\nwealth. He was able to hire nationally known attorneys who had prestige, skill, and extensive\nexperience in federal and state criminal law and in conducting negotiations. He had the resources\nto finance an aggressive approach to the case that included the preparation of multiple written\nsubmissions reflecting extensive research and analysis, as well as multiple in-person meetings\ninvolving several \n... [truncated, 3889 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/166 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=166]", "char_count": 3889}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 167, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 168 of 348\n\nOPR was attentive to any evidence that any of the subjects was motivated by bribes, gratuities, or\nother illegal political or personal considerations, and found no such indication.209 Witnesses,\nincluding law enforcement officials, were specifically asked whether they had any information\nindicating such corruption, and all—notwithstanding the harsh criticism by some of those same\nwitnesses of the Epstein matter's outcome—stated that they did not. Specifically, the FBI case\nagent told OPR that she did not believe there had been any illegal influence, and that if she had\nperceived any, she \"would have gone screaming\" to the FBI's public corruption unit. The co-case\nagent and the FBI supervisors up through the Special Agent in Charge likewise told OPR that they\nwere unaware of any indication that a prosecutor acted in the matter because of illegal factors such\nas a gratuity or bribe or other corrupt influence, and that any such indication would immediately\nhave been referred for criminal investigation by the FBI.\nB.\n\nContemporaneous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews Did\nNot Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were Improperly\nInfluenced by Epstein's Status, Wealth, or Associations\n\nAlthough Epstein's name is now nationally recognized, in 2006 and 2007, he was not a\nfamiliar national figure or even particularly well known in Florida. All five subjects told OPR that\nwhen they first learned of the investigation, they had not heard of Epstein. Similarly, the FBI case\nagent told OPR that when the investigation began, no one in the FBI appeared to have heard of\nEpstein, and other witnesses also told OPR that they were initially unfamiliar with Epstein.\nHowever, news reports about Epstein's July 2006 arrest on the state indictment, which were\ncontemporaneous with the beginning of the federal investigation, identified him as a wealthy Palm\nBeach resident with influential contact\n... [truncated, 3709 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/167 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=167]", "char_count": 3709}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 168, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 169 of 348\n\nnarrative of Epstein's philanthropic activities, rather than presented as a suggestion that Epstein's\nassociation to the former President warranted leniency and, in any case, the USAO rejected the\ndefense argument that the matter should be left entirely to the state's discretion. 212 The defense\nsubmission to the Deputy Attorney General contained a direct reference to Epstein's connection\nto former President Clinton, but that submission was made well after the NPA was negotiated and\nsigned, and in it, counsel contended that the USAO had treated Epstein too harshly because of his\nassociation with the former President. 213\n2.\n\nThe Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by Reasonable\nStrategic and Policy Considerations, Not Improper Influences\n\nIn addition to reviewing the documentary evidence, OPR questioned the five subject\nattorneys, all of whom denied being personally influenced by Epstein's wealth or status in making\ndecisions regarding the investigation, in the decision to resolve the case through an NPA, or in\nnegotiating the NPA. Villafafia, in particular, was concerned from the outset of the federal\ninvestigation that Epstein might try to employ against the USAO the same pressure that she\nunderstood had been used with the State Attorney's Office, and she proactively took steps to\ncounter Epstein's possible influence by meeting with Acosta and Sloman to sensitize them to\nEpstein's tactics. Both Acosta and Sloman told OPR that the USAO had handled cases involving\nwealthy, high-profile defendants before, including the Abramoff case. Acosta told OPR, \"[W]e\ntried to treat [the case] fairly, not looking at ... how wealthy is he, but also not saying we need to\ndo this because he is so wealthy.\" Menchel expressed a similar view, telling OPR that he did not\nbelieve \"it's appropriate to go after somebody because of their status one way or the other.\" Lourie\ntold OPR that Epstein's status may ha\n... [truncated, 4032 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/168 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=168]", "char_count": 4032}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 169, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 170 of 348\n\nconsidered that the USAO's most pivotal decisions—to resolve the cast through an NPA requiring\nEpstein to serve time in jail, register as a sexual offender, and provide monetary damages to\nvictims—had been made by July 31, 2007, when the USAO presented its \"term sheet\" to the\ndefense. This was before Acosta had ever met with defense counsel and when he had not indicated\nany plans to do so. It also was well before Acosta's October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with\ndefense counsel Lefkowitz, which received strong public and media criticism. OPR also\nconsidered significant the fact that although the USAO made numerous concessions in the course\nof negotiating the final NPA, the USAO did not accede to the defense request that the USAO end\nfederal involvement altogether and return the matter to the state authorities to handle as they saw\nfit, and the USAO refused to eliminate its requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender,\ndespite a strong push by the defense that it do so.\n3.\n\nSubject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records\nIdentified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence, Legal\nTheories, Litigation Risk, and a Trial's Potential Impact on Victims\n\nAcosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Laurie told OPR that they did not recall the specific content\nof discussions about the challenges presented by a potential federal prosecution or reasons for\nAcosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA, but they and Villafana\nidentified for OPR several case-specific factors, unrelated to Epstein's wealth or associations, that\neither did or likely would have been included in those discussions and that OPR concludes likely\ninfluenced Acosta's decision-making. These considerations included assessment of the\nevidentiary risks and the potential impact of a trial on the victims. For the most part, however,\nthese factors appear more aptly to pertain to the decision to resolve\n... [truncated, 3438 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/169 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=169]", "char_count": 3438}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 170, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 171 of 348\n\nand guaranteed sexual offender registration by Epstein . . . were\namong the factors [that led to the NPA].215\nDuring her OPR interview, Villafaiia similarly described the victims' general reluctance to\ngo forward with a trial:\n[W]hen we would meet with victims, we would ask them how they\nwanted the case to be resolved. And most of them wanted the case\nto be resolved via a plea. Some of them wanted him not to be\nprosecuted at all. Most of them did not want to have to come to\ncourt and testify. They were very worried about their privacy\nrights.216\nIn his written response to OPR, Lourie stated that although he did not specifically recall\nthe issues Villafaiia set forth in her declaration, he believed they would have been important to the\nUSAO in 2007. Lourie also told OPR that he generally recalled concerns within the USAO about\nthe charges and a potential trial:\n[M]y vague recollection is that I and others had concerns that there\nwas a substantial chance we would not prevail at both trial and on\nappeal after a conviction, resulting in no jail time, no criminal\n313\nVillafafia in Support of\nDoe v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla.), Declaration of A.\nGovernment's Response and Opposition to Petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for\nSummary Judgment at 8-9 (June 2, 2017).\n216\n\nThese concerns are also reflected in a 2017 declaration filed by the FBI case agent in the CVRA litigation,\nin which she stated, \"During interviews conducted from 2006 to 2008, no victims expressed a strong opinion that\nEpstein be prosecuted.\" She further described the concerns of some of the victims:\nThroughout the investigation, we interviewed many [of Epstein's] victims .. .\nA majority of the victims expressed concern about the possible disclosure of their\nidentities to the public. A number of the victims raised concerns about having to\ntestify and/or their parents finding out about thei\n... [truncated, 3541 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/170 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=170]", "char_count": 3541}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 171, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 172 of 348\n\nrecord, no restitution, no sex offender status, publication at a trial of\nthe names of certain victims that didn't want their names revealed\nand the general difficulties of a trial for the victims and their\nfamilies.\nAlthough his emails showed that, at the time, he advocated for prosecution of Epstein,\nLourie told OPR it was also his general recollection that \"everybody at the USAO working on the\nmatter had expressed concerns at various times about the long-term viability of a federal\nprosecution of Epstein due to certain factual and legal hurdles, as well as issues with the\ncooperation and desires of the victims.\"\nSimilarly, Menchel—who had experience prosecuting sexual assault crimes—recalled\nunderstanding that many of the victims were unwilling to go forward and would have experienced\nadditional trauma as a result of a trial, and some had made statements exonerating Epstein.\nMenchel told OPR he believed that if the USAO had filed the proposed charges against Epstein,\nEpstein would have elected to go to trial. In Menchel's view, the USAO therefore had to weigh\nthe risk of losing at trial, and thereby re-traumatizing the victims, against the benefits gained\nthrough a negotiated result, which ensured that Epstein served time in jail, registered as a sexual\noffender, and made restitution to his victims.\nSloman also recalled witness challenges and concerns about the viability of the\ngovernment's legal theories. He told OPR:\n[1]t seemed to me you had a tranche of witnesses who were not going\nto be reliable. You had a tranche [of] witnesses who were going to\nbe severely impeached. People who loved Jeffrey Epstein who\nthought he was a Svengali . . . who were going to say I told him I\nwas 18 years old.\nYou had witnesses who were scared to death of the public light\nbeing shown on them because their parents didn't even know -- had\nvery vulnerable victims. You had all of these concerns.\nAcosta told OPR \n... [truncated, 3149 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/171 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=171]", "char_count": 3149}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 172, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 173 of 348\n\nduclin't want to have to relive what happened to them.\"2\" The co-case agent told OPR that one\nof the \"strategies\" for dealing with the victims' fear was \"to keep them off the stand,\" and he\ngenerally remembered discussions about resolving the Epstein case in a way that protected the\nvictims' identities. In addition, the CEOS Trial Attorney who briefly worked with Villafafta on\nthe case after the NPA was signed told OPR that in her meetings with some of the victims, she\nformed the impression that they were not interested in the prosecution going forward. The CEOS\nTrial Attorney told OPR that \"[the victims] would have testified,\" but would have required an\nextensive amount of \"victim management\" because they were \"deeply embarrassed\" about\npotentially being labeled as prostitutes. The CEOS Trial Attorney also told OPR that \"there were\nobvious weaknesses in the case,\" from an evidentiary perspective?\"'\nThe contemporaneous records also reflect discussions of, or references to, various legal\nand factual issues or other concerns about the case. For example, in an early email to Menchel,\nLourie noted that two key issues raised by Villafafia's proposed charges were whether the USAO\ncould prove that Epstein traveled for the purpose of engaging in sex acts, and the fact that some\nminor victims had told Epstein they were 18. He later opined to Acosta and Menchel that \"there\nis some risk on some of the statutes [proposed in Villafafia's prosecution memorandum] as this is\nuncharted territory to some degree.\" In his July 5, 2007 email to Villafafia, Menchel cited Acosta's\nand Sloman's \"concerns about taking this case because of [the P]etit policy and a number of legal\nissues\" and Acosta's concerns about \"hurting Project Safe Childhood.\" Defense counsel raised\nmyriad legal and factual challenges in their voluminous letters to the USAO. Defense submissions\nattacked the legal theories for a federal prosecution \n... [truncated, 4193 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/172 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=172]", "char_count": 4193}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 173, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 174 of 348\n\nThe USAO might have been able to surmount the evidentiary, legal, and policy issues\npresented by a federal prosecution of Epstein. Villafafia, in particular, believed she could have\nprevailed had she taken the case to trial, and even after the NPA was negotiated, she repeatedly\nrecommended declaring Epstein in breach and proceeding with an indictment, because she\ncontinued to have confidence in the case.22° Oosterbaan and others also believed that the\ngovernment would succeed at trial. Furthermore, the victims were not a uniform group. Some of\nthem were afraid of testifying or having their identities made public; others wanted Epstein\nprosecuted, but even among those, it is not clear how many expressed a willingness to testify at a\ntrial; and still others provided information favorable to Epstein. In the end, Acosta assumed\nresponsibility for deciding how to resolve the Epstein investigation and weighing the risks and\nbenefits of a trial versus those of a pre-charge disposition. His determination that a pm-charge\ndisposition was appropriate was not unreasonable under the circumstances.\nAlthough evidentiary and witness issues explain the subject supervisors' concerns about\nwinning a potential trial and why the USAO would have sought some sort of pre-charge\ndisposition, they do not fully explain why Acosta decided to pursue a state-based resolution as\nopposed to a traditional federal plea agreement. OPR did not find in the contemporaneous records\na memorandum or other memorialization of the reasoning underlying Acosta's decision to offer a\nstate-based resolution or the terms offered to the defense on July 31, 2007.\nAccording to Acosta, \"In 2006, it would have been extremely unusual for any United States\nAttorney's Office to become involved in a state solicitation case, even one involving underage\nteens,\" because solicitation was \"the province of state prosecutors.\" Acosta told OPR that he\ndevelop\n... [truncated, 3789 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/173 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=173]", "char_count": 3789}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 174, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 175 of 348\n\nbeen concerned about policy and federalism issues.22I Sloman told OPR that although he did not\nremember specific conversations, he generally recalled that Acosta had been \"sensitive to\" Petite\npolicy and federalism concerns, which Sloman described as whether the USAO was \"overstepping\nour bounds by taking what is a traditional state case that was in the State Attorney's Office that\nwas resolved by the State Attorney's Office at some level.\" During his OPR interview, Menchel\nremembered that Acosta approached the case from \"a broader policy perspective\" and was worried\nabout \"the impact that taking the case in federally may have on . . . other programs,\" although\nMenchel did not recall specifically what those programs were.\nC.\n\nOther Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That the\nSubjects' Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences\n\nOPR considered additional aspects of the Epstein case that were inconsistent with a\nsuggestion that Acosta's decision to offer the July 31, 2007 terms was driven by corruption, a\ndesire to provide an improper benefit to Epstein, or other improper influences.\nFirst, OPR considered highly significant the fact that if Acosta's primary motivation was\nto benefit Epstein, he had an option even more favorable to Epstein available to him. The NPA\nrequired Epstein to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender, and provided a mechanism\nfor the victims to seek monetary damages—outcomes unlikely if the matter had been abandoned\nand sent back to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed appropriate. Epstein's\nattorneys had vehemently argued to the USAO that there was no federal interest in the investigation\nand that his conduct was exclusively a matter of state concern. If the USAO had declined to\nintervene in the case, as Epstein's counsel repeatedly and strongly argued it should, the state would\nhave meted out the sole punishment for hi\n... [truncated, 3950 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/174 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=174]", "char_count": 3950}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 175, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 176 of 348\n\nreconsider the provision. Acosta could certainly have modified or eliminated the provision entirely\nif his motivation was to benefit Epstein or Epstein's attorneys.\nSecond, Epstein himself was not satisfied with the NPA. Immediately after signing the\nagreement, he sought to have the Department nullify it by declaring federal involvement in the\ninvestigation inappropriate. In addition to repeatedly attacking the NPA in his submissions to the\nDepartment, Epstein added to his evidentiary challenges and federalism claims allegations of\nmisconduct and improper bias on the part of specific USAO personnel. Epstein's dissatisfaction\nwith the NPA, and his personal attacks on individual prosecutors involved in negotiating the\nagreement, appear inconsistent with a conclusion that the subjects designed the NPA for Epstein's\nbenefit.\nD.\n\nOPR Does Not Find That the Subjects' Preexisting Relationships with Defense\nCounsel, Decisions to Meet with Defense Counsel, and Other Factors\nEstablished That the Subjects Acted from Improper Influences or Provided\nImproper Benefits to Epstein\n\nIn evaluating the subjects' conduct, OPR considered various other factors featured in media\naccounts to show that the subjects provided improper benefits to Epstein or which purportedly\nsuggested that the subjects acted from improper influences. OPR examined these factors but did\nnot find that they supported a finding that the subjects were influenced by favoritism, bias, or other\nimproper motivation.\n1.\n\nThe Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Extended Any\nImproper Benefit to Epstein because of Their Preexisting Relationships\nwith His Attorneys\n\nEpstein's wealth enabled him to hire multiple attorneys who had preexisting personal\nconnections to some of the government attorneys involved in his case, in the State Attorney's\nOffice, in the USAO, and elsewhere in the Department. Based on the attorneys Epstein selected\nto repre\n... [truncated, 3391 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/175 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=175]", "char_count": 3391}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 176, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 177 of 348\n\n[O]ne of the issues in the case was the . . . defense's ability to\ndescribe the case or characterize the case as being legally complex.\nIt was not as legally complex as they made it out to be. But because\nthey were able to convince members of our office that it was\nsomehow extremely novel and legally complex, the issue became\nwho was likely to succeed in arguing these legal issues. And\nbecause of that, the legal prowess, if you will, of the attorneys [ ]\n[became] something to consider.\n\nI think that the ability of Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr and Jay\nLefkowitz to convince Alex Acosta that I didn't know what I was\ntalking [about] also, all came into play. So I think there were a\nnumber of factors and it all came together.\nAlthough Villafarla was critical of Acosta's consideration of the defense arguments, she\nconceded that the defense team's tactics demonstrated effective advocacy. Certainly, throughout\nthe case, Epstein's attorneys prepared lengthy memoranda analyzing the evidence and arguing\nnuanced legal points concerning federalism, the elements of numerous federal criminal statutes,\nand the evidence relevant to those statutes, but it is not unusual or unreasonable for prosecutors to\ncarefully consider well-crafted legal arguments from defense counsel.\nThere is little question that Epstein's extensive team of attorneys was able to obtain\nnegotiated benefits for Epstein—although the USAO never wavered from its three core\nrequirements, it did agree to a reduction in prison time from its original offer, and it granted Epstein\ncertain other concessions during the negotiations. Epstein's wealth provided him with skilled,\nexperienced negotiators who continually sought various incremental concessions, and with\nattorneys who knew how to obtain Department review of a USAO matter, thereby delaying\nundesired outcomes for as long as possible.223 Despite Epstein's evident intentions, however, OPR\ndid no\n... [truncated, 3184 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/176 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=176]", "char_count": 3184}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 177, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 178 of 348\n\nfriendships or associations with any of Epstein's attorneys. In fact, Menchel told OPR that he and\nhis USAO colleagues viewed Epstein's attempt to exert influence through his choice of counsel as\n\"ham-fisted\" and \"clumsy.\"\nSloman told OPR that although he became aware that Lourie was friends with Guy\nlaw partner, he was unaware of personal relationships between any of his other\nand\ncolleagues and any of Epstein's attorneys, but that in any event his attitude regarding cases\ninvolving former colleagues \"was that we would give them process, but we didn't pull any punches\nwith them.\" In Sloman's view, preexisting relationships with defense counsel did not \"change the\nequation\" because as AUSAs, he and his colleagues were motivated by what they perceived to be\nbest for the case.\nLourie told OPR that his preexisting associations with Epstein's attorneys \"didn't influence\nanything.\" Notably, at the outset of the Epstein case, Lourie sought guidance from the USAO's\nProfessional Responsibility Officer about theiiiiriety of his role as a supervisor in the\ninvestigation, because of his acquaintance with\nand long-time friendship with\nlaw\npartner. OPR considered Lourie's caution in seeking and obtaining the Professional Responsibility\nOfficer's advice as an indication that he was alert to his ethical responsibilities regarding\nrelationships with defense counsel, including avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest.\nAcosta said during his OPR interview that he \"developed\" the three criteria reflected on\nthe term sheet—a sentence of incarceration, sexual offender registration, and monetary damages\nfor the victims—before he engaged directly with any of Epstein's attorneys and before Epstein\nadded Starr and Lefkowitz, the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys, to his team. Acosta pointed out that\nthe USAO continued to insist on a resolution that satisfied all three of those criteria even after\nKirkland & Ellis bec\n... [truncated, 3726 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/177 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=177]", "char_count": 3726}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 178, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 179 of 348\n\nIn its review of the documentary record, OPR examined an email written by Villafafla in\n2018, more than a decade after the NPA was negotiated, in which she suggested that the two-year\nsentence requirement in the initial \"term sheet\" provided to the defense was developed by Menchel\nas a favor to defense attorney M.\nOPR examined the facts surrounding this allegation and\ndetermined that there was no merit to it. Specifically, in December 2018, after the Miami Herald\ninvestigative report renewed public attention to the case, Villafafia recounted in an email to a\nsupervisory AUSA, a conversation she recalled having had with Sloman about the case.225 In the\nemail, Villafafia stated that she had not been a participant in discussions that led to Acosta's\ndecision to offer a two-year plea deal, but she added the following: \"Months (or possibly years)\nlater, I asked former First Assistant Jeff Sloman where the two-year figure came from. He said\nthat Lily [sic] Ann\n(attorney for Epstein) asked Mr. Menchel to 'do her a solid' and\nconvince Mr. Acosta to offer two years.\"\nOPR questioned both Villafafia and Sloman about the ii rad \"do her a solid\" remark.\nVillafafia told OPR that she had been aware that Menchel and\nwere friends. During her\nOPR interview, Villafafia explained:\n[A] lot later, I asked Jeff. I said, you know, \"Jeff, where did this two\nyears come from?\" And he said, \"Well, I always figured that . . .\nLilly asked Matt to do her a solid,\" which I thought was such a\nstrange term, .. . \"and to get her a good deal so that she would be in\nEpstein's good graces\" and that that's where the two years came\nfrom. Although strangely enough, then several years after that, Jeff\nSloman asked me where the two years came from, and I had to\nremind him of that conversation. So Jeff doesn't know where the\ntwo years came from.\nBecause the email had been expressed in more definitive terms, OPR asked Villafafia\nwhether S\n... [truncated, 3522 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/178 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=178]", "char_count": 3522}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 179, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 180 of 348\n\nMenchel told OPR that when he and\nwere in the USAO, they had a social\nrelationship, which included, in 2003, \"a handful of dates over a period of two to three weeks. We\ndecided that .. . this was probably best not to pursue, and we mutually agreed to not do that.\"226\nApart from that, he stated they were \"close\" and \"hung out,\" and he asserted that this was known\nin the office at the time. Menchel said that his relationship with\n\"changed dramatically\"\nwhen she left the office for private practice, and that by the time he became involved in the Epstein\ninvestigation, he had dated and married his wife, and his contact with\nwould \"most likely\"\nhave been at office events and when she attended his wedding.227 Menchel added, \"[T]hat was\nthree and a half years [prior] for a very brief period of time, and I don't think I gave it a moment's\nthought.\"\nWhen asked by OPR about the basis for the decision to make an offer of a two-year term\nof incarceration, Menchel said that he did not recall discussions about the two-year offer and did\nnot recall how the office arrived at that figure. In response to OPR's question, Menchel stated that\nhis relationship with\ndid \"[n]ot at all\" affect his handling of the Epstein case Moreover,\nMenchel asserted that the contemporaneous documentary record supports a conclusion that it was\nAcosta, not Menchel, who made the decision to resolve the case with the two-year term.\nOPR carefully considered the documentary record on this point, as well as the statements\nto OPR from Menchel, Villafafia, Sloman, and Acosta, and concludes that there is no evidence\nsupporting the suggestion that the plea was instigated by Menchel as a favor to defense counsel.\nThe USAO's first plea overture to defense counsel which took place sometime before June 26,\n2007, occurred when Menchel spoke with\nabout the possibility of resolving the federal\ncase with a state plea that required jail time and sexual\n... [truncated, 4196 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/179 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=179]", "char_count": 4196}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 180, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 181 of 348\n\naccept the two-year proposal when it was made, but instead continued to press for a sentence of\nhome confinement, suggesting that the defense had not requested the two-year term as a favor and\ndid not view it as such. The defense had previously rejected the state's offer of a sentence of\nprobation, and there is no indication in the contemporaneous records that Epstein viewed any jail\nsentence favorably and certainly that did not appear to be the view of the defense team in the early\nstages of the negotiations.\nAs discussed below, after extensive questioning of the subjects about the basis for the twoyear offer, and a thorough review of the documentary record, OPR was unable to determine the\nreasoning underlying the decision to offer two years as the term of incarceration, as opposed to\nany other term of years. Nonetheless, OPR concludes from the evidence that Acosta was aware of\nand approved the initial offer to the defense, which included the two-year term of incarceration.\nThe only evidence suggesting that the offer of two years stemmed from an improper motivation of\nMenchel's was a single second-hand statement in an email drafted many years later. Sloman, the\npurported declarant, told OPR that he could not recall whether he made the statement, but he firmly\ndisputed that the email accurately reflected either the reason for the two-year proposal or his\nunderstanding of that reason. Villafafia herself could remember little about the critical\nconversation with Sloman, including whether she had recorded accurately what Sloman had said.\nGiven the lack of any corroborating evidence, and the evidence showing Epstein's vigorous\nresistance to the proposal, OPR concludes that there is no evidence to support the statement in\nVillafaIla's 2018 email that Menchel had extended a two-year plea deal as a favor to one of\nEpstein's attorneys.\nE.\n\nThe Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects' Meetings wit\n... [truncated, 3673 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/180 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=180]", "char_count": 3673}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 181, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 182 of 348\n\nincluding one called by the USAO to offer the NPA term sheet resolution—and a sixth meeting\ntogether with the State Attorney and the lead state prosecutor to discuss the state plea. Acosta\nattended only one pre-NPA meeting. After the NPA was signed and before Epstein entered his\nstate guilty pleas, the subject supervisors and the defense team had one substantive meeting, one\nunscheduled meeting on a procedural matter, and a meeting with one defense attorney in\npreparation for a conference call; in addition, Acosta had the breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz.229\n\nDate\n\nUSAO Participants\n\nDefense\nParticipants\n\nTopic/Purpose\n\nPre-NPA\nFeb. 1, 2007\n\nLourie / Villafafta\n\nLefcourt /\n\nLourie / Villafiula\nSloman / Menchel /\nLourie / Villafaila\n\nLefcourt /\nDershowitz / Black\n/ Lefcourt /\nBlack / Lefcourt /\n\nDefense presents investigation\nimproprieties and federal\njurisdiction issues\nDefense presents witness issues\nDefense presents legal issues,\ninvestigation improprieties, and\nfederal jurisdiction issues\nUSAO presents NPA term sheet\n\nStarr / Lettowitz /\n\nDefense presents counteroffer\n\nFeb. 20, 2007\nJune 26, 2007\n\nJuly 31, 2007\n\nSloman / Menchel /\nLourie / Villafiula\nSept. 7, 2007 Acosta / Oosterbaan /\nSloman / Villafatia /\nVillafaila's co-counsel\nSept. 12, 2007 Lourie / Lourie\nsuccessor / Villafana\n\nPost-NPA\nOct. 12, 2007\n\nAcosta\n\nNov. 21, 2007 Sloman (possibly\n(unscheduled) Acosta)\nDec. 14, 2007\n\nJan. 7, 2008\n\nAcosta / Sloman /\nVillafaila / another\nsenior AUSA\n(1) Acosta / Sloman\n(2) Acosta / Sloman\n(conference call)\n\nLeflcowitz/ Lefcourt Joint meeting with Krischer /\n/ Goldberger\nBelohlavek re state plea\nprovision of NPA\n\nLeflcowitz\n\nDefense discussion of NPA\nterms and likely appeal to\nDepartment\nLeflcowitz (possibly Defense discussion of victims'\nDershowitz)\nattorney representative\nprocedure\nStarr / Weinberg /\nDefense presents federal\nDershowitz /\njurisdiction issues, legal issues,\nLefcourt\nand\nuest for \n... [truncated, 2336 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/181 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=181]", "char_count": 2336}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 182, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 183 of 348\n\nOPR explored the subject supervisors' reasoning for accommodating the defense requests\nfor in-person meetings and whether such accommodation was unusual. OPR questioned each of\nthe four supervisory subject attorneys about his rationale for engaging in multiple meetings with\nthe defense.\nLourie could not recall his reasoning for meeting with Epstein's defense counsel, but he\ntold OPR that his general practice was to meet with defense counsel when asked to do so. Lourie\nrecognized that some prosecutors—like Villafafia—viewed meeting with the defense as a sign of\n\"weakness,\" but in Lourie's view, \"information is power,\" and as long as the USAO did not share\ninformation with the defense but rather listened to their arguments, meetings were \"all power to\nus.\" Laurie explained that by meeting with the defense, \"[Y]ou're getting the information that\nthey think is important; that they're going to focus on. The witnesses that they think are liars ....\nAnd so you can form all of that into your strategy.\" Laurie also told OPR that giving defense\ncounsel the opportunity to argue the defense position is an important \"part of the process\" that\nhelped ensure procedural fairness, allowing them to \"believe that they are getting heard.\" When\nasked whether he afforded the same access to all defendants, Laurie responded, \"I don't recall ever\ngetting . . . so many requests for meetings . . . and so many appeals and so many audiences that\n[Epstein's attorneys] got. But this was I think the first time that that's really happened.\"\nMenchel, too, told OPR that his general view was that \"ethically it's appropriate\" to give a\ndefense attorney \"an audience,\" and there was no real \"downside\" to doing so. Menchel added,\n\"[W]hat happens a lot of times is the government will carve around those points that are being\nraised by the defense, and it's good to know\" what the defense will be.\nDuring his OPR interview, Acosta rejecte\n... [truncated, 4023 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/182 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=182]", "char_count": 4023}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 183, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 184 of 348\n\npreparing a \"short\" charging document \"with only 'clean' victims that they have not dirtied up\nalready.\"230 The fact that Lourie apparently used information gleaned from the defense about the\nvictims' credibility to formulate his charging recommendation supported his statements to OPR\nthat such meetings were, in his experience, a useful source of information that could be factory'\ninto the government's charging strategy.\nThe two February 2007 Villafafta/Lourie-level meetings focused on witness issues and\nclaims of misconduct by state investigators, but in late May 2007, defense attorneys requested\nanother meeting—this time with higher-level supervisors Menchel and Sloman—to make a\npresentation concerning legal deficiencies in a potential federal prosecution. The request was\ngranted after Lourie recommended to Menchel and Sloman that \"[i]t would probably be helpful to\nus . . . to hear their legal arguments in case we have missed something.\" The requested meeting\ntook place on June 26, 2007. Before the meeting, at Menchel's direction, Villafarla provided to\nthe defense a list of statutes the USAO was considering as the basis for federal charges. Defense\ncounsel used that information to prepare a 19-page letter, submitted to the USAO the day before\nthe June 26 meeting, as \"an overview\" of the defense position. In an email to his colleagues,\nLourie evaluated the defense submission, noting its weaker and stronger arguments. A\ncontemporaneous email indicates that Menchel, Lourie, and Villafafta viewed the meeting itself as\nprimarily a \"listening session.\"231 After the meeting, Epstein's team submitted a second lengthy\nletter to the USAO detailing Epstein's \"federalism\" arguments that the USAO should let the state\nhandle the matter.\nMenchel apparently scheduled the next meeting with defense counsel, on July 31, 2007, to\nfacilitate the USAO's presentation to the defense team of the \"term sheet\" describ\n... [truncated, 3641 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/183 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=183]", "char_count": 3641}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 184, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 185 of 348\n\nThe meeting of USAO representatives and Epstein's defense attorneys, together with the\nState Attorney and the lead state prosecutor on September 12, 2007, was a necessary part of the\nNPA negotiation process.\nEven after the NPA was signed, the defense continued to request meetings and reviews of\nthe case, both within the USAO and by the Department's Criminal Division and the Deputy\nAttorney General. Although limited reviews were granted, during this period there was only one\nsubstantive meeting with Acosta, on December 14, 2007.232 This meeting occurred in lieu of the\nmeeting Starr had requested of Assistant Attorney General Fisher, most likely because the defense\nsubmissions to the Department's Criminal Division had raised issues not previously raised with\nthe USAO and the Department determined that Acosta should address those in the first instance.233\nAcosta told OPR that he did not ask for the Department review, but he also did not want to appear\nas if he \"fear[ed]\" that review. Acosta's nuanced position, however, was not clear to the\nDepartment attorneys who responded to Epstein's appeals and who perceived Acosta to be in favor\nof a Department review, rather than merely tolerant of it. Notably, though, none of those meetings\nor reviews resulted in the USAO abandoning the NPA, and Epstein gained no substantial\nadvantage from his continued entreaties.\nIn sum, in evaluating the subjects' conduct, OPR considered the number of meetings, their\npurpose, the content of the discussions, and decisions made afterwards. OPR cannot say that the\nnumber of meetings, particularly those occurring before the NPA was signed, was so far outside\nthe norm—for a high profile case with skilled defense attorneys—that the quantity of meetings\nalone shows that the subjects were motivated by improper favoritism. In evaluating the subjects'\nconduct, OPR considered that the meetings were held with different levels of USA\n... [truncated, 3802 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/184 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=184]", "char_count": 3802}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 185, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\n2.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 186 of 348\n\nThe Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta Negotiated a Deal\nFavorable to Epstein over Breakfast with Defense Counsel\n\nOPR separately considered the circumstances of one specific meeting that has been the\nsubject of media attention and public criticism. The Miami Herald's November 2018 reporting on\nthe Epstein investigation opened with an account of the October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting that\ndefense counsel Jay Lefkowitz arranged to have with Acosta at the West Palm Beach Marriott\nhotel. According to the Miami Herald article, \"a deal was struck\" at the meeting to allow Epstein\nto serve \"just 13 months\" in the county jail in exchange for the shuttering of the federal\ninvestigation, and Acosta also agreed to \"conceal\" the full extent of Epstein's crimes from the\nvictims and the public.234 Although public criticism of the meeting has focused on the fact that\nthe meeting occurred in a hotel far from Acosta's Miami office, the evidence shows that Acosta\ntraveled to West Palm Beach on October 11 for a press event and stayed overnight at the hotel,\nnear the USAO's West Palm Beach office, because at midday on October 12 he was to speak at\nthe Palm Beach County Bench Bar Conference. After carefully considering the evidence\nsurrounding the breakfast meeting, including contemporaneous email communications and witness\naccounts, OPR concludes that Acosta did not negotiate the NPA, or make any significant\nconcessions relating to it, during or as a result of the October breakfast meeting.\nEpstein and his attorneys signed the NPA on September 24, 2007—more than two weeks\nbefore the October 12 breakfast meeting. The signed NPA contained all of the key provisions\nresulting from the preceding weeks of negotiations between the parties, and despite a later\naddendum and ongoing disputes about interpreting the damages provision of the agreement, those\nkey provisions remained in place thereafter. Acosta told OPR\n... [truncated, 3876 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/185 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=185]", "char_count": 3876}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 186, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 187 of 348\n\nproof that this led to the breakfast meeting, email exchanges between Lefkowitz and Acosta show\nthat it was under discussion at the time they were scheduling the meeting. Shortly after the\nbreakfast meeting, Sloman, in Miami, sent an email to Lefkowitz (copying Acosta and Villafafia),\nnoting that he \"just got off the phone with Alex\" and offering a slightly revised portion of the\naddendum relating to the mechanism for selection of the attorney representative. Sloman later\nclarified for Villafafia that \"Jay's suggested revision has been rejected.\"\nA second area of continuing negotiation arose from the defense claim that Epstein's\nobligation under the NPA to pay the attorney representative's fees did not obligate him to pay the\nfees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Although this was at odds with the USAO's\ninterpretation of the provision, the USAO and defense counsel reached agreement and clarified the\nprovision in the NPA addendum that was finalized several weeks after the October breakfast\nmeeting. Although the revised provision was to Epstein's advantage, the revision concerned\nattorney's fees and did not materially impede the victims' ability to seek damages from Epstein\nunder § 2255. The fact that the negotiations continued after the breakfast meeting indicates that\nAcosta did not make promises at the meeting that resolved the issue.\nOPR found limited contemporaneous evidence concerning the discussion between Acosta\nand Lefkowitz. In a letter sent to Acosta on October 23, 2007, two weeks after the breakfast\nmeeting, Lefkowitz represented that Acosta made three significant concessions during the meeting.\nSpecifically, Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta had agreed (1) not to intervene with the State\nAttorney's Office's handling of the case, (2) not to contact any of the victim-witnesses or their\ncounsel, and (3) not to intervene regarding the sentence Epstein received. Acosta to\n... [truncated, 3308 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/186 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=186]", "char_count": 3308}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 187, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 188 of 348\n\npromise equates to the imposition of a gag order. Our Office cannot\nand will not agree to this.\nIt is the intent of this Office to treat this matter like any other case.\nAcosta told OPR that this was a polite way of chastising Lefkowitz for mischaracterizing\nwhat Acosta said during the breakfast meeting. Although OPR could not find evidence that the\nletter was sent to Lefkowitz, OPR nonetheless considers it persuasive evidence that Acosta, shortly\nafter the breakfast meeting, disagreed with Lefkowitz's description of their discussions and had\ndiscussed those disagreements with Sloman.\nNevertheless, OPR examined the three specific concessions that Lefkowitz described in\nthe October 23 letter, to determine whether evidence reflected that Acosta had made them during\nthe breakfast meeting. First, Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta agreed during the breakfast meeting\nthat he did not intend to interfere with the state's handling of the case. Contemporaneous\ndocuments show that well before the breakfast meeting, Acosta had expressed the view that he did\nnot want to \"dictate\" actions to the State Attorney or the state court. For example, during the NPA\nnegotiations, Acosta asked Villafafia to \"soften\" certain language that appeared to require the State\nAttorney's Office or the state court to take specific actions, such as requiring that Epstein enter his\nguilty plea or report to begin serving his sentence by a certain date. Although Acosta may have\nmade a statement during the breakfast meeting expressing his disinclination to interfere with the\nstate's proceedings, such a statement would have been a reiteration of his prior position on the\nsubject, rather than any new concession.\nLefkowitz also claimed in his October 23, 2007 letter that Acosta agreed not to contact any\nof the victims or potential witnesses or their counsel. For the reasons discussed more fully in\nChapter Three, OPR concludes that the decis\n... [truncated, 3713 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/187 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=187]", "char_count": 3713}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 188, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 189 of 348\n\nsentence of incarceration, and the USAO would consider a plea that differed from that requirement\na breach of the NPA and would \"proceed accordingly.\"\nThe guilty plea Epstein entered in state court in June 2008 was consistent with the dictates\nof the NPA, and pursuant to that plea, the court imposed a sentence of 18 months' incarceration.\nEpstein, however, applied for and was accepted into the work release program, and was able to\nserve a substantial portion of his sentence outside of the jail. The NPA did not reference work\nrelease nor authorize Epstein to receive such benefits during his tenure at the Palm Beach County\nStockade. Moreover, Villafafia received assurances from defense counsel that Epstein would serve\nhis entire sentence of confinement \"in custody.\" Responsibility for the decision to afford Epstein\nwork release privileges during his incarceration rested with state officials, who had the sole\nauthority for administering the work release program.\nAfter considering the substantial record documenting the decisions made after Acosta's\nOctober 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz, OPR found nothing in the record to suggest\nthat the meeting resulted in a material change to the NPA, affected the sentence Epstein served\npursuant to the NPA, or contributed to state officials' decision to permit him to participate in work\nrelease.\nF.\n\nVillafana's Emails with Defense Attorney Lefkowitz during the NPA\nNegotiations Do Not Establish That Villafafla, or Other Subjects, Intended to\nGive Epstein Preferential Treatment or Were Motivated by Favoritism or\nOther Improper Influences\n\nDuring the CVRA litigation, the petitioners obtained from Epstein's attorney, and filed\nunder seal, a redacted series of email exchanges between Epstein attorney Lefkowitz and Villafafta\n(and others with Acosta and Sloman) during September 2007 when the NPA was being finalized,\nand thereafter. These emails had been re\n... [truncated, 3473 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/188 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=188]", "char_count": 3473}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 189, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 190 of 348\n\nOPR asked Villafafia about these emails and about the tenor of her interactions with\nLefkowitz during the NPA negotiations and with other defense attorneys generally. Villafafia\nacknowledged that their tone was collegial and collaborative, and explained that generally, the\ntone of these emails reflected her personality and her commitment to complete the task her\nsupervisors had assigned to her:\n[I]f you were to pull all my e-mails on every case, you would find\nthat that is how I communicate with people. I'm a Minnesota girl,\nand I prefer not to be confrontational until I have to be. And I can\nbe when I need to be. But my instructions from my supervisors were\nto engage in these negotiations and to complete them. So I felt that\ngiven that task, the best way to complete them was to reach the\nagreement and, keeping in mind the terms that . . . our office had\nagreed to, and do that in a way that is civil. So . . . although my\nlanguage in the kind of introductory or prefatory communications\nwith Mr. Lefkowitz was casual and was friendly, when you look at\nthe terms and when he would come back to me asking for changes,\nmy response was always, \"No, I will not make that change.\"\nVillafafia denied any intention to keep the victims uninformed about the NPA or to provide\nan improper benefit for Epstein, and she explained the context of the emails in question. The email\nin which Villafafia expressed reluctance to \"highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all\nof the other persons that we could charge\" was written in response to a defense proposal to include\nin the federal plea agreement the parties were then considering a promise by the government not\nto prosecute Epstein's assistants and other employees. Lefkowitz had proposed that the plea\nagreement state, \"Epstein's fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement also precludes the\ninitiation of any and all criminal charges which might othe\n... [truncated, 3609 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/189 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=189]", "char_count": 3609}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 190, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 191 of 348\n\nWith regard to her comment about \"avoid[ing] the press,\" Villafafia told OPR that her goal\nwas to protect the anonymity of the victims. She said that the case was far more likely to be\ncovered by the Palm Beach press, which had already written articles about Epstein, than in Miami,\nand \"if [the victims] wanted to attend [the plea hearing], I wanted them to be able to go into the\ncourthouse without their faces being splashed all over the newspaper.\"\nIn evaluating the emails, OPR reviewed all the email exchanges between Villafafia, as well\nas Sloman and Acosta, and Lefkowitz and other defense counsel, including the portions redacted\nfrom the publicly released emails (except for a few to or from Acosta, copies of which OPR did\nnot locate in the USAO records). OPR also considered the emails in the broader context of\nVillafafia's overall conduct during the federal investigation of Epstein. The documentary record,\nas well as witness and subject interviews, establishes that Villafafia consistently advocated in favor\nof prosecuting Epstein and worked for months toward that goal. She repeatedly pressed her\nsupervisors for permission to indict Epstein and made numerous efforts to expand the scope of the\ncase. She opposed meetings with the defense team, and nearly withdrew from the case because\nher supervisors agreed to those meetings. Villafafia objected to the decision to resolve the case\nthrough a guilty plea in state court, and she engaged in a lengthy and heated email exchange with\nMenchel about that subject. When she was assigned the task of creating an agreement to effect\nthat resolution, Villafafia fought hard during the ensuing negotiations to hold the USAO's position\ndespite defense counsel's aggressive tactics.\nOPR also considered statements of her supervisors regarding her interactions with defense\ncounsel. Sloman, in particular, told OPR that reports that Villafafia \"was soft on Epstein . . .\n... [truncated, 4168 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/190 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=190]", "char_count": 4168}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 191, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 192 of 348\n\nentitled to significant weight, and OPR credits them. OPR finds, therefore, that the emails in\nquestion do not themselves establish that Villafana (or any other subject) acted to improperly\nbenefit Epstein, was motivated by favoritism or other improper influences, or sought to silence\nvictims.\nC.\n\nThe Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta, Lourie, or Villafafia Agreed to\nthe NPA's Provision Promising Not to Prosecute \"Potential Co-conspirators\"\nin Order to Protect Any of Epstein's Political, Celebrity, or Other Influential\nAssociates\n\nOPR examined the decision by the subjects who negotiated the NPA—Villafai►a, Lourie,\nand Acosta—to include in the agreement a provision in which the USAO agreed not to prosecute\n\"any potential co-conspirators of Epstein,\" in addition to four named individuals, to determine\nwhether that provision resulted from the subjects' improper favoritism towards Epstein or an\nimproper effort to shield from prosecution any of Epstein's known associates. Other than various\ndrafts of the NPA and of a federal plea agreement, OPR found little in the contemporaneous\nrecords mentioning the provision and nothing indicating that the subjects discussed or debated it—\nor even gave it much consideration. Drafts of the NPA and of the federal plea agreement show\nthat the final broad language promising not to prosecute \"any potential co-conspirators of Epstein\"\nevolved from a more narrow provision sought by the defense. The provision expanded as Villafafia\nand defense counsel exchanged drafts of, first, a proposed federal plea agreement and, then, of the\nNPA, with apparently little analysis and no substantive discussion within the USAO about the\nprovision.237\nAs the NPA drafting process concluded, Villafafia circulated to Lourie and another\nsupervisor a draft that contained the non-prosecution provision, telling Lourie it was \"some of\n[defense counsel's] requested language regarding promi\n... [truncated, 4324 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/191 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=191]", "char_count": 4324}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 192, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 193 of 348\n\nVillafafia had raised (defense counsel's attempt to insert an immigration waiver into the\nagreement), but Lourie did not comment on the provision promising not to prosecute coconspirators or ask Villafafia to explain why she believed the provision did not harm the\ngovernment's interests. In a subsequent email about the draft NPA, Villafafia asked Lourie for\n\"[a]ny other thoughts,\" but there is no indication that he provided further input. OPR found no\ndocument that suggested Villafafia and Lourie discussed the provision further, or that the other\nindividuals who were copied on Villafafia's email referencing the provision—her immediate\nsupervisor, the supervisor designated to succeed Lourie as manager of the West Palm Beach office,\nand Villafaila's co-counsel—commented on or had substantive discussions about it. Villafafia told\nOPR that because none of the three supervisors responded to her observation that the nonprosecution provision \"doesn't hurt us,\" Villafafia assumed that they agreed with her assessment.\nVillafafia told OPR that she could not recall a conversation specifically about the provision\nagreeing not to prosecute \"any potential co-conspirators,\" but she remembered generally that\ndefense counsel told her Epstein wanted \"to make sure that he's the only one who takes the blame\nfor what happened.\" Villafafia told OPR that she and her colleagues believed Epstein's conduct\nwas his own \"dirty little secret.\" Villafafia said that press coverage at the time of Epstein's 2006\narrest did not allege that any of his famous contacts participated in Epstein's illicit activity and that\nnone of the victims interviewed by the case agents before the NPA was signed told the investigators\nabout sexual activity with any of Epstein's well-known contacts about whom allegations arose\nmany years later.238 Villafafia acknowledged that investigators were aware of Epstein's longtime\nrelationship with a close \n... [truncated, 4026 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/192 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=192]", "char_count": 4026}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 193, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 194 of 348\n\nLourie described the promise not to prosecute \"potential co-conspirators\" as \"unusual,\" and told\nOPR that he did not know why it was included in the agreement, but added that it would be \"unlike\nme if I read that language to just leave it in there unless I thought it was somehow helpful.\" Lourie\nposited that victims who recruited other underage girls to provide massages for Epstein\n\"theoretically\" could have been charged as co-conspirators. He told OPR that when he saw the\nprovision, he may have understood the reference to unnamed \"co-conspirators\" as \"a message to\nany victims that had recruited other victims that there was no intent to charge them.\"\nAcosta did not recall any discussions about the non-prosecution provision. But he told\nOPR that Epstein was always \"the focus\" of the federal investigation, and he would have viewed\nthe federal interests as vindicated as long as Epstein was required to face \"meaningful\nconsequences\" for his actions. Acosta told OPR that when he reviewed the draft NPA, \"[t]o the\nextent I reviewed this co-conspirator provision, I can speculate that my thinking would have been\nthe focus is on Epstein[ ] . . . going to jail. Whether some of his employees go to jail, or other,\nlesser involved [individuals], is not the focus of this.\" Acosta also told OPR that he assumed\nVillafafia and Lourie had considered the provision and decided that it was appropriate. Finally,\nSloman, who was not involved in negotiating the NPA, told OPR that in retrospect, he understood\nthe non-prosecution provision was designed to protect Epstein's four assistants, and it \"never\ndawned\" on him that it was intended to shield anyone else.\nThis broad provision promising not to prosecute \"any potential co-conspirators\" is\ntroubling and, as discussed more fully later in this Report, OPR did not find evidence showing that\nthe subjects gave careful consideration to the potential scope of the provision o\n... [truncated, 3637 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/193 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=193]", "char_count": 3637}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 194, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 195 of 348\n\ninvestigation.243 Media reports in mid-2009 suggested Epstein was released from his state\nincarceration \"early\" because he was assisting in a financial crimes investigation in the Eastern\nDistrict ofNew York involving Epstein's former employer, Bear Steams. At the time, Villafafia\nwas notified by the AUSAs handling the matter that they \"had never heard of Epstein and he was\nproviding \"absolutely no cooperation\" to the government. In 2011, Villafafia reported to senior\ncolleagues that \"this is urban myth. The FBI and I looked into this and do not believe that any of\nit is true.\" Villafafia told OPR that the rumor that Epstein had cooperated with the case in New\nYork was \"completely false.\" Acosta told OPR that he did not have any information about Epstein\ncooperating in a financial investigation or relating to media reports that Epstein had been an\n\"intelligence asset.\"244\nIn addition to the contemporaneous record attesting that Epstein was not a cooperating\nwitness in a federal matter, OPR found no evidence suggesting that Epstein was such a cooperating\nwitness or \"intelligence asset,\" or that anyone—including any of the subjects of OPR's\ninvestigation—believed that to be the case, or that Epstein was afforded any benefit on such a\nbasis. OPR did not find any reference to Epstein's purported cooperation, or even a suggestion\nthat he had assisted in a different matter, in any of the numerous communications sent by defense\ncounsel to the USAO and the Department. It is highly unlikely that defense counsel would have\nomitted any reason warranting leniency for Epstein if it had existed.\nAccordingly, OPR concludes that none of the subjects of OPR's investigation provided\nEpstein with any benefits on the basis that he was a cooperating witness in an unrelated federal\ninvestigation, and OPR found no evidence establishing that Epstein had received benefits for\ncooperation in any matter.\nV.\n\nACOSTA EXERC\n... [truncated, 3740 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/194 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=194]", "char_count": 3740}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 195, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 196 of 348\n\nsuccessful federal prosecution, Acosta prematurely decided to resolve the case without adequately\naddressing ways in which a federal case potentially could have been strengthened, such as by\nobtaining Epstein's missing computer equipment. Finally, a lack of coordination within the USAO\ncompounded Acosta's flawed reasoning and resulted in insufficient oversight over the process of\ndrafting the NPA, a unique document that required more detailed attention and review than it\nreceived. These problems were, moreover, entirely avoidable because federal prosecution, and\npotentially a federal plea agreement, existed as viable alternatives to the NPA resolution.\nIn evaluating Acosta's conduct, OPR has considered and taken into account the fact that\nsome of Epstein's conduct known today was not known in 2007 and that other circumstances have\nchanged in the interim, including some victims' willingness to testify. OPR has also evaluated\nAcosta's decisions in a framework that recognizes and allows for decisions that are made in good\nfaith, even if the decision in question may not have led to the \"best\" result that potentially could\nhave been obtained. Nonetheless, after considering all of the available evidence and the totality\nof the then-existing circumstances, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in that he\nchose an action or course of action that was in marked contrast to that which the Department would\nreasonably expect of an attorney exercising good judgment.\nA.\n\nAcosta's Decision to Resolve the Federal Investigation through a State Plea\nunder Terms Incorporated into the NPA Was Based on a Flawed Application\nof the Petite Policy and Federalism Concerns, and Failed to Consider the\nSignificant Disadvantages of a State-Based Resolution\n\nThe Department formulated the Petite policy in response to a series of Supreme Court\nopinions holding that the Constitution does not deny state and federal go\n... [truncated, 4041 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/195 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=195]", "char_count": 4041}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 196, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 197 of 348\n\nNotably, in the early 2000s, the Department had begun pursuing specific initiatives to combat child\nsex trafficking, including Project Safe Childhood, and Congress had then recently passed the\nPROTECT Act. Acosta himself told OPR that the exploitation ofminors was \"an important federal\ninterest,\" which in Epstein's case was compounded by the \"sordidness\" of the acts involved and\nthe number of victims.\nIt is also clear that because the state case against Epstein was still pending and had not\nreached a conviction, acquittal, or other decision on the merits, the Petite policy did not apply and\ncertainly did not preclude a federal prosecution of Epstein. He had been charged with one state\ncharge of solicitation to prostitution on three occasions, involving one or more other persons\nwithout regard to age—a charge that would have addressed only a scant portion of the conduct\nunder federal investigation. Acosta acknowledged to OPR that the Petite policy \"on its face\" did\nnot apply. Moreover, the State Attorney did not challenge the federal government's assumption\nofprosecutorial responsibility, and despite having obtained an indictment, held back on proceeding\nwith the state prosecution in deference to the federal government's involvement. In these\ncircumstances, the USAO was free to proceed with a prosecution sufficient to ensure vindication\nof the federal interest in prosecuting a man who traveled interstate repeatedly to prey upon minors.\nThe federal government was uniquely positioned to fully investigate the conduct of an individual\nwho engaged in repeated criminal conduct in Florida but who also traveled extensively and had\nresidences outside of Florida. Even if the Petite policy had applied, OPR has little doubt that the\nUSAO could have obtained authorization from the Department to proceed with a prosecution under\nthe circumstances of this case.245\nDespite the undeniable federal interest in pros\n... [truncated, 4245 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/196 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=196]", "char_count": 4245}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 197, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 198 of 348\n\n[The prosecution] was going forward on the part of the state, and so\nhere is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign .. .\nstate, saying you're not doing enough, [when] to my mind . . . the\nwhole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the []state . . .\nis an independent entity, and that we should presume that what\nthey're doing is correct, even if we don't like the outcome, except\nin the most unusual of circumstances.\nAcosta told OPR that \"absent USAO intervention,\" the state's prosecution of Epstein\nwould have become final, and accordingly, it was \"prudent\" to employ Petite policy analysis. In\nAcosta's view, \"the federal responsibility\" in this unique situation was merely to serve as a \"backstop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no miscarriage ofjustice.\"247 Acosta told OPR\nthat he understood the PBPD would not have brought Epstein to the FBI's attention if the State\nAttorney had pursued charges that required Epstein's incarceration. Acosta therefore decided that\nthe USAO could avert a \"manifest injustice\" by forcing the state to do more and require Epstein\nto serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender.\nAcosta's reasoning was flawed and unduly constricted. Acosta's repeated references to a\n\"miscarriage of justice\" or \"manifest injustice\" echoes the \"manifestly inadequate\" language used\nin the Petite policy to define the circumstances in which the federal government may proceed with\na criminal case after a completed state prosecution. Nothing in the Petite policy, however, requires\nsimilar restraint when the federal government pursues a case in the absence of a completed state\nprosecution, even if the state is already investigating the same offense. The goal of the Petite\npolicy is to prevent multiple prosecutions for the same offense, not to compel the federal\ngovernment to defer to a parallel state interest in a case, particularly one in which\n... [truncated, 3785 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/197 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=197]", "char_count": 3785}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 198, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 199 of 348\n\ndepart from the Ashcroft Memo. He told OPR, however, that he did not recall discussing the\nAshcroft Memo with his colleagues and nothing in the contemporaneous documentary record\nsuggests that he made a conscious decision to depart from it when he decided to resolve the federal\ninvestigation through the NPA. Instead, it appears that Acosta simply failed to consider the tension\nbetween federal charging policy and the strong federal interest in this case, on the one hand, and\nhis broad reading of the Petite policy and his general concerns about \"federalism,\" on the other\nhand. OPR concludes that Acosta viewed the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein\ntoo narrowly and through the wrong prism.\nFurthermore, Acosta's federalism concerns about intruding on the state's autonomy\nresulted in an outcome—the NPA—that intruded far more on the state's autonomy than a decision\nto pursue a federal prosecution would have.209 By means of the NPA, the federal government\ndictated to the state the charges, the sentence, the timing, and certain conditions that the state had\nto obtain during the state's own prosecution. Acosta acknowledged during his OPR interview that\nhis \"attempt to backstop the state here[] rebounded, because in the process, it .. . ended up being\narguably more intrusive.\"\nAcosta's concern about invading the state's authority led to additional negative\nconsequences. Acosta revised the draft NPA in several respects to \"soften\" its tone, by substituting\nprovisions requiring Epstein to make his \"best efforts\" for language that appeared to dictate certain\nactions to the state. In so doing, however, Acosta undermined the enforceability of the agreement,\nmaking it difficult later to declare Epstein in breach when he failed to comply.\nOPR found no indication that when deciding to resolve the federal prosecution through a\nmechanism that relied completely on state action, Acosta considered the n\n... [truncated, 3948 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/198 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=198]", "char_count": 3948}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 199, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 200 of 348\n\nThe sexual offender registration provision is yet another example of how Acosta's decision\nto create an unorthodox mechanism that relied on state procedures to resolve the federal\ninvestigation led to unanticipated consequences benefitting Epstein. Acosta told OPR that one of\nthe core aspects of the NPA was the requirement that Epstein plead guilty to a state charge\nrequiring registration as a sexual offender. He cited it as a provision that he insisted on from the\nbeginning and from which he never wavered. However, the USAO failed to anticipate certain\nfactors that affected the sexual offender registration requirement in other states where Epstein had\na residence. In selecting the conduct for the factual basis for the crime requiring sexual offender\nregistration, the state chose conduct involving a victim who was at least 16 at the time of her\ninteractions with Epstein, even though Epstein also had sexual contact with a 14-year old victim.\nThe victim's age made a difference, as the age of consent in New Mexico, where Epstein had a\nresidence, was 16; therefore, Epstein was not required to register in that state. As a 2006 letter\nfrom defense counsel Lefcourt to the State Attorney's Office made clear, the defense team had\nthoroughly researched the details and ramifications of Florida's sexual offender registration\nrequirement; OPR did not find evidence indicating similar research and consideration by the\nUSAO.\nFinally, Acosta was well aware that the PBPD brought the case to the FBI's attention\nbecause of a concern that the State Attorney's Office had succumbed to \"pressure\" from defense\ncounsel. Villafatia told OPR that she informed both Acosta and Sloman of this when she met with\nthem at the start of the federal investigation. Although Acosta did not remember the meeting with\nVillafafia, he repeatedly told OPR during his interview that he was aware that the PBPD was\ndissatisfied with the State \n... [truncated, 4029 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/199 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=199]", "char_count": 4029}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 200, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 201 of 348\n\nEpstein's state guilty plea.2\" As U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the authority to resolve the case in\nthis manner, but OPR concludes that in light of all the surrounding circumstances, his decision to\ndo so reflected poor judgment. Acosta's application of Petite policy principles was too expansive,\nhis view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow, and his understanding of\nthe state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use the NPA.25'\nB.\n\nThe Assessment of the Merits of a Potential Federal Prosecution Was\nUndermined by the Failure to Obtain Evidence or Take Other Investigative\nSteps That Could Have Changed the Complexion of the Case\n\nThe leniency resulting from Acosta's decision to resolve the case through the NPA is also\ntroubling because the USAO reached agreement on the terms of the NPA without fully pursuing\nevidence that could have changed the complexion of the case or afforded the USAO significant\nleverage in negotiating with Epstein. Acosta told OPR that his decision to resolve the federal\ninvestigation through the NPA was, in part, due to concerns about the merits of the case and\nconcerns about whether the government could win at trial. Yet, Acosta made the decision to\nresolve the case through a state-based resolution and extended that proposal to Epstein's defense\nattorneys before the investigation was completed. As the investigation progressed, the FBI\ncontinued to locate additional victims, and many had not been interviewed by the FBI by the time\nof the initial offer. In other words, at the time of Acosta's decision, the USAO did not know the\nfull scope of Epstein's conduct; whether, given Epstein's other domestic and foreign residences,\nhis criminal conduct had occurred in other locations; or whether the additional victims might\nimplicate other offenders. In addition, Villafafia planned to approach the female assistants to\nattempt to obtain cooperation\n... [truncated, 4284 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/200 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=200]", "char_count": 4284}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 201, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 202 of 348\n\nsearch warrant was executed on that property, the computer equipment associated with those\ncameras had been removed. Villafafia knew who had possession of the computer equipment.\nSurveillance images might have shown the victims' visits, and photographic evidence of their\nappearance at the time of their encounters with Epstein could have countered the anticipated\nargument that Epstein was unaware these girls were minors. The surveillance video might have\nshown additional victims the investigators had not yet identified. Such images could have been\npowerful visual evidence of the large number of girls Epstein victimized and the frequency of their\nvisits to his home, potentially persuasive proof to a jury that this was not a simple \"solicitation\"\ncase.\nEpstein's personal computers possibly contained even more damning evidence. Villafafia\ntold OPR that the FBI had information that Epstein used hidden cameras in his New York residence\nto record his sexual encounters, and one victim told agents that Epstein's assistant photographed\nher in the nude. Based on this evidence, and experience in other sex cases involving minors,\nVillafafia and several other witnesses opined to OPR that the computers might have contained\nchild pornography. Moreover, Epstein lived a multi-state lifestyle; it was reasonable to assume\nthat he may have transmitted still images or videos taken at his Florida residence over the intemet\nto be accessed while at one of his other homes or while traveling. The interstate transmission of\nchild pornography was a separate, and serious, federal crime that could have changed the entire\ncomplexion of the case against Epstein.253 Villafafia told OPR, \"[I]f the evidence had been what\nwe suspected it was . . . [lit would have put this case completely to bed. It also would have\ncompletely defeated all of these arguments about interstate nexus.\"\nBecause she recognized the potential significance \n... [truncated, 3766 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/201 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=201]", "char_count": 3766}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 202, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 203 of 348\n\nthe federal investigation in exchange for a plea in state court to a charge that carried a two-year\nsentence. The FBI co-case agent told OPR that, in a meeting to discuss the resolution, at which\nthe FBI was present, the co-case agent specifically suggested that the USAO wait to pursue a\nresolution until after the litigation was resolved, but this suggestion was \"pushed under the rug\"\nwithout comment. Although the co-case agent could not recall who was present, the case agent\nrecalled that Menchel led the meeting, which occurred while the litigation was still pending.\nEven after the NPA two-year state plea resolution was presented to the defense, Villafafia\ncontinued to press ahead to have the court resolve the issue concerning the defense production of\nthe computer equipment. On August 10, 2007, she asked Lourie for authorization to oppose\nEpstein's efforts to stay the litigation until after an anticipated meeting between the USAO and the\ndefense, informing Lourie that a victim interviewed that week claimed she started seeing Epstein\nat age 14 and had been photographed in the nude. A few days later, Villafafia told defense counsel\nthat she had \"conferred with the appropriate people, and we are not willing to agree to a stay.\"\nDefense counsel then contacted Lourie, who agreed to postpone the hearing until after the\nupcoming meeting with Acosta. After the meeting, and when the court sought to reschedule the\nhearing, Villafafia emailed Sloman to ask if she should \"put it off\"; he replied, \"Yes,\" and the\nhearing was re-set for September 18, 2007. As negotiations towards the NPA progressed,\nhowever, the hearing was postponed indefinitely. Ultimately the NPA itself put the issue to rest\nby specifying that all legal process would be held in abeyance unless and until Epstein breached\nthe agreement.\nVillafafia told OPR that she had learned through law enforcement channels that the defense\nteam had revi\n... [truncated, 3785 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/202 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=202]", "char_count": 3785}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 203, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 204 of 348\n\nwith one of Epstein's defense attorneys about it. Sloman told OPR during his interview that he\n\"vaguely\" remembered the computer issue. The documentary evidence confirms that he had at\nleast some contemporaneous knowledge of the issue—when asked by Villafatia whether to put off\na September 12, 2007 hearing on the litigation, he told her to do so. Finally, as noted previously,\nthe FBI co-case agent proposed at a meeting with USAO personnel that the USAO wait until the\nlitigation was resolved before pursuing plea negotiations.\nContemporaneous records show that Acosta was likely aware before the NPA was signed\nof the USAO's efforts to obtain custody of Epstein's computers and that after the NPA was signed,\nhe was informed about the use of legal process for obtaining the computer equipment. The NPA\nitself provides that \"the federal.. . investigation will be suspended, and all pending [legal process]\nwill be held in abeyance,\" that Epstein will withdraw his \"motion to intervene and to quash certain\n[legal process],\" and, further, that the parties would \"maintain . . . evidence subject to [legal\nprocess] that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate\" until the\nNPA's terms had been fully satisfied, at which point the legal process would be \"deemed\nwithdrawn.\" (Emphasis added.) Acosta's numerous edits on the NPA's final draft suggest that he\ngave it a close read, and OPR expects that Acosta would not have approved the agreement without\nunderstanding what legal process his office was agreeing to withdraw, or why the only type of\nevidence specified was \"certain computer equipment.\" In addition, Acosta told OPR that he\nworked closely with Sloman and Menchel, consulted with them, and relied on their counsel about\nthe case. Among other things, Acosta said he discussed with them concerns about the law and the\nevidentiary issues presented by a federal criminal trial. Therefore, al\n... [truncated, 4129 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/203 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=203]", "char_count": 4129}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 204, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 205 of 348\n\nTo be clear, OPR is not suggesting that prosecutors must obtain all available evidence\nbefore reaching plea agreements or that prosecutors cannot reasonably determine that reaching a\nresolution is more beneficial than continuing to litigate evidentiary issues. Every case is different\nand must be judged on its own facts. In this case, however, given the unorthodox nature of the\nstate-based resolution, the fact that Acosta's decision to pursue it set the case on a wholly different\ntrack than what had been originally contemplated by his experienced staff, the nature and scope of\nEpstein's criminal conduct, the circumstances surrounding the removal of the computers from\nEpstein's residence, and the potential for obtaining evidence revealing serious additional criminal\nconduct, Acosta had a responsibility to ensure that he was fully informed about the consequences\nof pursing the course of action that he proposed and particularly about the consequences flowing\nfrom the express terms of the NPA. In deciding to resolve the case pre-charge, Acosta lost sight\nof the bigger picture that the investigation was not completed and viable leads remained to be\npursued. The decision to forgo the government's efforts to obtain the computer evidence and to\npursue significant investigative steps should have been made only after careful consideration of\nall the costs and benefits of the proposed action. OPR did not find evidence that Acosta fully\nconsidered the costs of ending the investigation prematurely.255\nC.\n\nOPR Was Unable to Determine the Basis for the Two-Year Term of\nIncarceration, That It Was Tied to Traditional Sentencing Goals, or That It\nSatisfied the Federal Interest in the Prosecution\n\nThe heart of the controversy surrounding the Epstein case is the apparent undue leniency\nafforded him concerning his sentence. After offering a deal that required a \"non-negotiable\"\n24-month term of incarceration, Acosta\n... [truncated, 4192 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/204 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=204]", "char_count": 4192}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 205, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 206 of 348\n\n\"I'm reconstructing memories of . . . 12 years ago. I can speculate that at some point, the matter\ncame up, and I or someone else said ... what would the original charges have likely brought? And\nsomeone said this amount.\" Acosta told OPR that he could not recall who initially proposed this\nmethod, but he believed that it likely did not result from a single specific discussion but rather\nfrom conversations over a course of time. Acosta could not recall specifically with whom he had\nthese discussions, other than that it would have been Lourie, Menchel, or Sloman. Villafafia was\nnot asked for her views on a two-year sentence, and she had no input into the decision before it\nwas made. Villafab told OPR that she examined the state statutes and could not validate that a\nstate charge would have resulted in a 24-month sentence. OPR also examined applicable state\nstatutes and the Florida sentencing guidelines, but could not confirm that Epstein was, in fact,\nfacing a potential two-year sentence under charges contemplated by the PBPD.\nOn the other hand, during his OPR interview, Lourie \"guess[ed]\" that \"somehow the\ndefense conveyed . . . we're going to trial if it's more than two years.\" Menchel similarly told\nOPR that he did not know how the two year sentence was derived, but \"obviously it was a number\nthat the office felt was palatable enough that [Epstein] would take\" it. Sloman told OPR that he\nhad no idea how the two-year sentence proposal was reached.\nThe contemporaneous documentary record, however, provides no indication that Epstein's\nteam proposed a two-year sentence of incarceration or initially suggested, before the USAO made\nits offer, that Epstein would accept a two-year term of incarceration. As late as July 25, 2007—\nonly days before the USAO provided the term sheet to defense counsel—Epstein's counsel\nsubmitted a letter to the USAO arguing that the federal government should not prosecute\n... [truncated, 4113 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/205 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=205]", "char_count": 4113}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 206, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 207 of 348\n\nindictment. Given Epstein's continued insistence that federal charges were not appropriate and\ndefense counsel's efforts to minimize the amount of time Epstein would spend in jail, it is\nquestionable whether Epstein would have accepted such a plea offer, but the USAO did not even\nextend the offer to determine what his response to it would be.\nWeighed against possible loss at trial were some clear advantages to a negotiated resolution\nthat ensured a conviction, including sexual offender registration and the opportunity to establish a\nmechanism for the victims to recover damages. These advantages, added to Acosta's concern\nabout intruding on the state's authority, led him to the conclusion that a two-year state plea would\nbe sufficient to prevent manifest injustice. Menchel told OPR, \"I don't believe anybody at the\ntime that this resolution was entered into was looking at the two years as a fair result in terms of\nthe conduct. I think that was not the issue. The issue was whether or not if we took this case to\ntrial, would we risk losing everything?\"\nDuring the course of negotiations over a potential federal plea, the USAO agreed to accept\na plea for an 18-month sentence, a reduction of six months from the original \"non-negotiable\" twoyear term. The subjects did not have a clear memory of why this reduction was made. Villafafia\nattributed it to a conversation between Acosta and Lefkowitz, but Acosta attributed it to a decision\nmade during the negotiating process by Villafafia and Lourie, telling OPR that he understood his\nattorneys needed flexibility to reach a final deal with Epstein.\nOPR found no contemporaneous documents showing the basis for the two-year term.\nDespite extensive subject interviews and review of thousands of contemporaneous records, OPR\nwas unable to determine who initially proposed the two-year term of incarceration or why that\nterm, as opposed to other possible and lengthier \n... [truncated, 3787 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/206 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=206]", "char_count": 3787}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 207, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nD.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 208 of 348\n\nAcosta's Decisions Led to Difficulties Enforcing the NPA\n\nAfter the agreement was reached, the collateral attacks and continued appeals raised the\nspecter that the defense had negotiated in bad faith. At various points, individual members of the\nUSAO team became frustrated by defense tactics, and in some instances, consideration was given\nto whether the USAO should declare a unilateral breach. Indeed, on November 24, 2008, the\nUSAO gave notice that it deemed Epstein's participation in work release to be a breach of the\nagreement but ultimately took no further action. Acosta told OPR: \"I was personally very\nfrustrated with the failure to report on October 20, and had I envisioned that entire collateral attack,\nI think I would have looked at this very differently.\"\nOnce the NPA was signed, Acosta could have ignored Epstein's requests for further review\nby the Department and, if Epstein failed to fulfill his obligations under the NPA to enter his state\nguilty plea, declared Epstein to be in breach and proceeded to charge him federally. When\nquestioned about this issue, Acosta explained that he believed the Department had the \"right\" to\naddress Epstein's concerns. He told OPR that because the USAO is part of the Department of\nJustice, if a defendant asks for Departmental review, it would be \"unseemly\" to object. During his\nOPR interview, Sloman described Acosta as very process-oriented, which he attributed to Acosta's\nprior Department experience. Sloman, however, believed the USAO gave Epstein \"[t]oo much\nprocess,\" a result of the USAO's desire to \"do the right thing\" and to the defense team's ability to\nkeep pressing for more process without triggering a breach of the NPA. Furthermore, Epstein's\ndefense counsel repeatedly and carefully made clear they were not repudiating the agreement.\nAcosta told OPR that the USAO would have had to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA in order\nto proceed to \n... [truncated, 3910 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/207 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=207]", "char_count": 3910}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 208, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 209 of 348\n\nthe defendant faced decades in prison for sexual crimes against minors with such an insignificant\nterm of incarceration, and made numerous other concessions to the defense. As OPR has set forth\nin substantial detail in this Report, OPR did not find evidence to support allegations that the\nprosecutors sought to benefit Epstein at the expense of the victims. Instead, the result can more\nappropriately be tied to Acosta's misplaced concerns about interfering with a traditionally state\ncrime and intruding on state authority. Acosta was also unwilling to abandon the path that he had\nset, even when Villafafia and Lourie advocated to end the negotiations and even though Acosta\nhimself had learned that the state authorities may not have been a reliable partner.\nMany of the problems that developed might have been avoided had Acosta engaged in\ngreater consultation with his staff before making key decisions. The contemporaneous records\nrevealed problems with communication and coordination among the five key participants. Acosta\nwas involved to a greater extent and made more decisions than he did in a typical case. Lourie\ntold OPR that it was \"unusual to have a U.S. Attorney get involved with this level of detail.\"\nMenchel told OPR, \"I know we would have spoken about this case a lotiac\nAnd I'm sure with\nand Andy as well.\"\nJeff as well, and there were conversations -- a meeting that I had with\nLourie similarly told OPR:\nWell, ... he would have been talking to Jeff and Matt, talking to me\nto the extent that he did, he would have been looking at the Pros\nMemo and . . . the guidance from CEOS, he would have been\nreading the defense attorney's letters, maybe talking to the State\nAttorney, I don't know, just . . . all these different sources of\ninformation he was -- I'm comfortable that he knew the case, you\nknow, that he was, he was reading everything. Apparently, he, you\nknow, read the Pros Memo, he read all th\n... [truncated, 3828 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/208 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=208]", "char_count": 3828}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 209, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 210 of 348\n\nwhich Villafafia and Lourie believed that the state had intentionally failed to aggressively pursue\na broader state indictment.\nOne example illustrates this communication gap. In a September 20, 2007 email to Lourie\nasking him to read the latest version of the proposed \"hybrid\" federal plea agreement (calling for\nEpstein to plead to both state and federal charges), Acosta noted, \"I don't typically sign plea\nagreements. We should only go forward if the trial team supports and signs this agreement. I\ndidn't even sign the public corruption or ECM cartel agreements, so this should not be the first.\"\n(Emphasis added.) In his email to Villafafia, Lourie attached Acosta's email and instructed\nVillafaila to \"change the signature block to your name and send as final to Jay [Leflcowitz].\"\n(Emphasis added.) Villafafia raised no objection to signing the agreement. Acosta told OPR that\nhe wanted to give the \"trial team\" a chance to \"speak up and let him know\" if they did not feel\ncomfortable with the agreement. Villafafia, however, told OPR that she did not understand that\nshe was being given an opportunity to object to the agreement; rather, she believed Acosta wanted\nher to sign it because he was taking an \"arm's length\" approach and signaling this \"was not his\ndeal.\" The fact that the top decision maker believed he was giving the line AUSA an opportunity\nto reflect and stop the process if she believed the deal was inappropriate, but the line AUSA\nbelieved she was being ordered to sign the agreement because her boss wanted to distance himself\nfrom the decision, reflects a serious communication gap.\nAs another example, at one point, Villafafia, frustrated and concerned about the decisions\nbeing made concerning a possible resolution, requested a meeting with Acosta; in a sternly worded\nrebuke, Menchel rejected the request. Although Menchel told OPR that he was not prohibiting\nVillafafia from speaking to Aco\n... [truncated, 4131 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/209 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=209]", "char_count": 4131}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 210, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 211 of 348\n\nmanagers required more effort than in other offices, where a line AUSA can more easily just stop\nby a supervisor's office to discuss a case.257\nSecond, key personnel were absent at varying times. Menchel's last day in the office was\nAugust 3, 2007, the day he sent to the defense his letter making the initial offer, and presumably\nin the immediate period before his departure date, Menchel would have been trying to wrap up his\noutstanding work. Yet, this was also the time when Acosta was deciding how to resolve the matter.\nSimilarly, in the critical month of September, the NPA and plea negotiations intensified and the\nNPA evolved significantly, with the USAO having to consider multiple different options as key\nprovisions were continuously added or modified while Villafafla pressed to meet her lateSeptember deadline. Although Lourie was involved with the negotiations during this period, he\nwas at the same time transitioning not only to a new job but to one in Washington, D.C., and was\ntraveling between the two locations. Sloman was on vacation in the week preceding the signing,\nwhen many significant changes were made to the agreement, and he did not participate in drafting\nor reviewing the NPA before it was signed. Accordingly, during the key negotiation period for a\nsignificant case involving a unique resolution, no one involved had both a thorough understanding\nof the case and full ownership of the decisions that were being made. Villafafta certainly felt that\nduring the negotiations, she was only implementing decisions made by Acosta. Acosta, however,\ntold OPR that when reviewing the NPA, \"I would have reviewed this for the policy concerns. Did\nit do the . .. bullet points, and my assumption, rightly or wrongly, would have been that Andy and\nwould have looked at this, and that this was ... appropriate.\"\nThe consequences flowing from the lack of ownership and effective communication can\nbe seen \n... [truncated, 3899 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/210 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=210]", "char_count": 3899}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 211, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 212 of 348\n\nparties.258 The rush to reach a resolution should not have led the USAO to agree to such a\nsignificant provision without a full consideration of the potential consequences and justification\nfor the provision. It is highly doubtful that the USAO's refusal to agree to that term would have\nitself caused the negotiations to fail; the USAO's rejection of the defense proposal concerning\nimmigration consequences did not affect Epstein's willingness to sign the agreement. The\npossibility that individuals other than Epstein's four female assistants could have criminal\nculpability for their involvement in his scheme could have been anticipated and should have caused\nmore careful consideration of the provision.\nSimilarly, the confidentiality provision was also accepted with little apparent consideration\nof the implications of the provision for the victims, and it eventually became clear that the defense\ninterpreted the provision as precluding the USAO from informing the victims about the status of\nthe investigation. Agreeing to a provision that restricted the USAO's ability to disclose or release\ninformation as it deemed appropriate mired the USAO in disputes about whether it was or would\nbe violating the terms of the NPA by disclosing information to victims or the special\nDecisions about disclosure of information should have remained within the authority and province\nof the USAO to decide as it saw fit.\nThere is nothing improper about a U.S. Attorney not having a meeting with the line AUSA\nor other involved members of the prosecution team before he or she makes a decision in a given\ncase; indeed, U.S. Attorneys often make decisions without having direct input from line AUSAs.\nAnd Acosta did have discussions with Menchel, and possibly Sloman, before making the critical\ndecision to resolve the matter through a state plea, although the specifics of those discussions could\nnot be recalled by the participants\n... [truncated, 3950 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/211 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=211]", "char_count": 3950}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 212, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 213 of 348\n\nfrom Villafafta and others, but given the highly unusual procedure being considered, his decision\nshould have been made only after a full consideration of all of the possible ramifications and\nconsequences of pushing the matter into the state court system, with which neither Villafafta nor\nthe other subjects had experience, along with consideration of the legal and evidentiary issues and\npossible means of overcoming those issues. OPR did not find evidence indicating that such a\nmeeting or discussion with the full team was held before the decision was made to pursue the\nstate-based resolution, before the decision was made to offer a two-year term of incarceration, or\nbefore the NPA, with its unusual terms, was signed. As Acosta later recognized and told OPR,\n\"And a question that I think is a valid one in my mind is, did the focus on, let's just get this done\nand get a jail term, mean that we didn't take a step back and say, let's evaluate how this train is\nmoving?\"\nMany features of the NPA were given inadequate consideration, including core provisions\nlike the term of incarceration and sexual offender registration, with the result that Epstein was able\nto manipulate the process to his benefit. Members of his senior staff held differing opinions about\nsome of the issues that Acosta felt were important and that factored into his decision-making.\nThere does not seem to be a point, however, at which those differing opinions were considered\nwhen forming a strategy; rather, Acosta seems to have made a decision that everyone beneath him\nfollowed and attempted to implement but without a considered strategy beyond attaining the three\ncore elements. As the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had authority to proceed in this manner, but many of\nthe problems that developed with the NPA might have been avoided with a more thoughtful\napproach. As Acosta belatedly recognized, \"[Of I was advising a fellow U.S. Attorney today\n... [truncated, 3488 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/212 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=212]", "char_count": 3488}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 213, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 214 of 348\n\n[Page Intentionally Left Blank]\n\n188\n\nEFTA02830989\n\n", "char_count": 125}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 214, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 215 of 348\n\nCHAPTER THREE\nISSUES RELATING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERACTIONS\nAND COMMUNICATIONS WITH VICTIMS\nPART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND\nI.\n\nOVERVIEW\n\nChapter Three describes the events pertaining to the federal government's interactions and\ncommunications with victims in the Epstein race, and should be read in conjunction with the\nfactual background set forth in Chapter Two, Part One. This chapter sets forth the pertinent legal\nauthorities and Department policies and practices regarding victim notification and consultation,\nas well as OPR's analysis and conclusions. OPR discusses key events relating to the USAO's and\nthe FBI's interactions with victims before and after the signing of the NPA, beginning with the\nFBI's initial contact with victims through letters informing them that the FBI had initiated an\ninvestigation. A timeline of key events is provided on the following page.\nII.\n\nTHE CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771\nA.\n\nHistory\n\nIn December 1982, the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime issued a final report\noutlining recommendations for the three branches of government to improve the treatment of crime\nvictims. The Task Force concluded that victims have been \"overlooked, their pleas for justice\nhave gone unheeded, and their wounds—personal, emotional and financial—have gone\nunattended72® Thereafter, the government enacted various laws addressing victims' roles in the\ncriminal justice system: the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, the Victims of Crime Act\nof 1984, the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (VRRA), the Violent Crime Control and\nLaw Enforcement Act of 1994, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the\nVictim Rights Clarification Act of 1997, and the Justice for All Act of 2004.261\nThe CVRA, enacted on October 30, 2004, as part of the Justice for All Act, was designed\nto protect crime victims and to make them \"Ml participants in the criminal justice system.\"262 \n... [truncated, 2903 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/214 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=214]", "char_count": 2903}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 215, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 216 of 348\n\nTimeline of Key Events for Crime Victims' Rights Act Analysis\nDec 7 - Sloman tells\nVulgate to \"hold the\nletter\" re notification to\nvictim! about state court\nplea hearing\n\nAug 10 FBI\nbegins interviewing\nvictims\n\nJWy 7 - Jane Doe f\n\nriart,7.\n\nAug 24\nto supervisors indicating\nthat she sent victim\nnotification letters to \"all\nof the girls\"\n\nai I\n\nAug 28 - FBI begins\nsending VNS letters\nto victims\n\nsae\n\nSep Deic\n\n2006\n\nran\n\nJuly 9 USAO\nsending letters to victims\nconcerning resolution of\nfederal investigation\n\nI\n\nJot\n\nI\n\nAwe\n\nI\n\nSim\n\nI\n\nOn\n\nI\n\nNov\n\nI\n\nDirt\n\nJn\n\nFeb\n\n2007\nSept 6 - Villatafta e-nail to\nSloman raising victim\nconsultation issue, which\nSloman (onwards to Mosta\n\nSets(\nassigned\nOct FBI agents meet with 3\nvictims to inform them of the\nNPA, but then raise\nimpeachment concerns\n\nDec 17. 2010 DO)\nOffice of Legal\nCounsel issues opinion\nregarding CVRA\nOct 2011 - DOJ revises\nAG Guidelines\nMay 29. 2015 - CVRA\namended to include two\nnew rights\n\nJan 10 FBI\nsends VNS letter\nto some victims\nPea\n\nAdditional Key Dates\n\nMar\n\nAPr\n\nJu\n\n2008\n\nFeb 21. 2019 - Dist. Ct.\nissues opinion finding\nC.S. violated the\nCVRA\nJul 6. 2019 - Epstein\ninvested on SDN'i\ncharges\nAug 10. 2019 - Epstein\ndies in custody\n\nJan 31-Feb I - FBI,\nVillafaita, and CEOS\nattorney interview victims\n\nFeb 19— Vdlafafa\ncompletes third update to\nprosecution memorandum\nFeb 28 USAO notifies 'Xi'\nCivil Rights Division that\nEpstein invesligation is ongoing\n\nJune 27 - Villa(afie\ndrafts new version of\nindictment\nJune 2' • 25 Villatifia\nconcocts Reiter and!\nregarding I mileifeW\nJune ill 1 psion pleads\nguilt% an state court\n\nOct Nov FBI agents\ninterview edditioad\nvictims for the first time\n\nSep 16. 2019 - Dist. Ct.\ncloses CVRA case and\ndenies petitioners'\nrequest for remedies\nApr 14. 2020 - 1116\nCircuit Court of\nAppeals denies\nMandamus petition\nAug 7. 2020 Petitioners' petition (or\nrehearing en bone\ngranted\n\n190\n\nEFTA02830991\n\n", "char_count": 1973}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 216, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 217 of 348\n\nBill of Rights in the VRRA.263 Following multiple Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee\nhearings and various revisions of the proposed amendment, the Senators determined that such an\namendment was unlikely to be approved and, instead, they presented the CVRA as a compromise\nIlleasure.264\n\nB.\n\nEnumerated Rights\n\nThe CVRA defines the term \"crime victim\" as \"a person directly and proximately harmed\nas a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia.\"265\nInitially, and at the time relevant to the federal Epstein investigation, the CVRA afforded crime\nvictims the following eight rights:\n(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.\n(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public\ncourt proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or\nof any release or escape of the accused.\n(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court\nproceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing\nevidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be\nmaterially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that\nproceeding.\n(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the\ndistrict court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole\nproceeding.\n(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the\nGovernment in the case.\n263\n\nSee 150 Cong. Rec. S4260-0I at I, 5 (2004). The VRRA identified victims' rights to (I) be treated with\nfairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy; (2) be reasonably protected from the accused offender;\n(3) be notified of court proceedings; (4) be present at all public court proceedings that relate to the offense, unless the\ncourt determines that testimony by the victim would be materially affected if the victim heard other testimony at trial;\n(5) confer with an attorney for the Government in the case; (6) restitution; and (7) inform\n... [truncated, 2890 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/216 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=216]", "char_count": 2890}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 217, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 218 of 348\n\n(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.\n(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.\n(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the\nvictim's dignity and privacy.\nAlthough many of the rights included in the CVRA already existed in federal law as part\nof the VRRA, the CVRA afforded crime victims standing to assert their rights in federal court or\nby administrative complaint to the Department, and obligated the court to ensure that such rights\nwere afforded. The passage of the CVRA repealed the rights portion of the VRRA (42 U.S.C.\n§ 10606), but kept intact the portion of the VRRA directing federal law enforcement agencies to\nprovide certain victim services, such as counseling and medical care referrals (42 U.S.C.\n§ 10607(c)). Department training emphasizes that the VRRA obligates the Department to provide\nvictim services, which attach upon the detection of a crime, while the CVRA contains courtenforceable rights that attach upon the filing of a charging instrument.\nIn 2015, Congress amended the CVRA and added the following two rights:266\n(9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain\nor deferred prosecution agreement.\n(10) The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the\nservices described in section 503(c) of the Victims' Rights and\nRestitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10607(c)) and provided contact\ninformation for the Office of the Victims' Rights Ombudsman of the\nDepartment of Justice.\nIII.\n\nTHE DEPARTMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CVRA'S DEFINITION OF\n\"CRIME VICTIM\" AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION\nA.\n\nApril 1, 2005 Office of Legal Counsel \"Preliminary Review\"\n\nIn 2005, Department management requested informal guidance from the Department's\nOffice of Legal Counsel (OLC) regarding interpretation of the CVRA's definition of \"crime\nvictim.s267 On April 1, 2005, OLC provided \"preliminary and infor\n... [truncated, 2702 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/217 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=217]", "char_count": 2702}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 218, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 219 of 348\n\nOLC concluded that because the CVRA defines \"'crime victim' as a 'person directly and\nproximately harmed by the commission of a Federal offense,' .. . the definition of victim is thus\ntethered to the identification of a 'Federal offense,' an event that occurs with the filing of a\ncomplaint.\" OLC further concluded that because the House Report stated that the CVRA codifies\nthe \"'rights of crime victims in the Federal judicial system\" and a complaint \"commences the\n'judicial process' and places an offense within the 'judicial system,\" the legislature must have\nintended for CVRA rights to commence upon the filing of a complaint.\nOLC also found that the language of the CVRA rights supported its interpretation. For\nexample, the first right grants a victim protection from \"the accused,\" not a suspect. Additionally,\nthe second, third, and fourth rights refer to \"victim notification, and access to, public proceedings\ninvolving release, plea, sentencing or parole—none of which commence prior to the filing of a\ncomplaint.\"\nB.\n\n2005 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance\n\nIn May 2005, the Department updated its Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and\nWitness Assistance (2005 Guidelines) to include the CVRA.2 The 2005 Guidelines specifically\ncited the CVRA requirement that agencies \"engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution\nof crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded\" their\nCVRA rights, which in 2005 encompassed the initial eight CVRA rights.\nThe 2005 Guidelines provided detail regarding implementation of the Department's CVRA\nduties and divided criminal cases into an \"investigation stage,\" a \"prosecution stage,\" and a\n\"corrections stage.\" The individuals responsible for notifying crime victims of their CVRA rights\nvaried depending on the stage of the proceedings.\nDuring the \"investigation stage\" of cases in which th\n... [truncated, 3541 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/218 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=218]", "char_count": 3541}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 219, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 220 of 348\n\ninformation about available services for victims. Therefore, even\nthough [the Department] may not afford CVRA rights to victims if\ncharges have not been filed in their cases, the [D]epartment may\nprovide certain services to victims that may serve the same function\nas some CVRA rights.270\nThe 2005 Guidelines stated that the \"prosecution stage\" of the case began when \"charges\nare filed and continue[d] through postsentencing legal proceedings.\" The \"U.S. Attorney in whose\ndistrict the prosecution is pending\" was responsible for making \"best efforts to see that crime\nvictims are notified\" of their rights under the CVRA.\nDuring the prosecution stage, the 2005 Guidelines required the U.S. Attorney, or a\ndesignee, to notify crime victims of case events, such as the filing of charges; the release of an\noffender, the schedule of court proceedings; the acceptance of a guilty plea or nolo contendere or\nrendering of a verdict; and any sentence imposed. The 2005 Guidelines required the responsible\nofficial to \"provide the victim with reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court\nproceeding ... that involves the crime against the victim.\"\nThe 2005 Guidelines specifically required federal prosecutors to \"be available to consult\nwith victims about [their] major case decisions,\" such as dismissals, release of the accused, plea\nnegotiations, and pretrial diversion. In particular, the 2005 Guidelines required the responsible\nofficial to make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of, and consider victims' views\nabout, prospective plea negotiations. Nevertheless, the 2005 Guidelines cautioned prosecutors to\n\"consider factors relevant to the wisdom and practicality of giving notice and considering [the\nvictim's] views\" in light of various factors such as \"[w]hether the proposed plea involves\nconfidential information or conditions\" and \"[w]hether the victim is a possible witness in the case\nan\n... [truncated, 3237 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/219 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=219]", "char_count": 3237}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 220, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 221 of 348\n\nvictim/witness staff were \"ready to assist you with the details of victim notification, and other\nareas for which United States Attomeyns Offices are now explicitly responsible under the act.\"\nThe USAO's Victim Witness Program Coordinator told OPR that the USAO provided annual\nmandatory office-wide training on victim/witness issues and training for new employees.\nB.\n\nThe Automated Victim Notification System\n\nBoth the FBI and the USAO manage contacts with crime victims through the Victim\nNotification System (VNS), an automated system maintained by the Executive Office for United\nStates Attorneys. The 2005 Guidelines mandated that \"victim contact information and notice to\nvictims of events . .. shall, absent exceptional circumstances (such as cases involving juvenile or\nforeign victims), be conducted and maintained using VNS.\" The VNS is separate from agency\ncase management systems maintained by the FBI and the USAO. Both the FBI and the USAO\nuse the VNS to generate form letters to victims at various points in the investigation and the\nprosecution of a criminal case. Although each form letter can be augmented to add some limited\nindividual matter-specific content, the letters contain specific language concerning the purpose of\nthe contact that cannot be removed (such as the arrest of the defendant or the scheduling of a\nsentencing hearing).2\"\nIn the usual course of a criminal case, the FBI collects victim contact information during\nthe investigation stage, which it stores in its case management system. The FBI's Victim Specialist\nexports the victim information data from the FBI's case management system into the VNS\ndatabase. Victim information stored in the VNS is linked to the investigation's VNS case number.\nAt the time of the Epstein investigation, the FBI's Victim Specialist could use the VNS to generate\nseven different form notification letters: (1) initial notification; (2) case is under in\n... [truncated, 3491 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/220 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=220]", "char_count": 3491}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 221, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nC.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 222 of 348\n\nFBI Victim Notification Pamphlets\n\nThe 2005 Guidelines recommended that \"victims be given a printed brochure or card that\nbriefly describes their rights and available services . . . and [contact information for] the victimwitness coordinator or specialist ....\" At the time of the Epstein investigation, FBI agents\nnationwide routinely followed a practice of providing victims with pamphlets entitled, \"Help for\nVictims of Crime\" and \"The Department of Justice Victim Notification System.\" The \"Help for\nVictims of Crime\" pamphlet contained a listing of the eight CVRA rights. The pamphlet stated:\n\"Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the indictment of an individual for the crime,\nand it will be the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you\nare afforded those rights.\" The case agent in the Epstein investigation told OPR that she provided\nvictims with the FBI pamphlet upon the conclusion of an interview. The pamphlet entitled \"The\nDepartment of Justice Victim Notification System\" provided an overview of the VNS and\ninstructions on how to access the system.\nV.\n\nTHE INTRODUCTORY USAO AND FBI LETTERS TO VICTIMS\nA.\n\nAugust 2006: The FBI Victim Notification Letters\n\nOn August 8, 2006, shortly after the FBI opened its investigation into Epstein, the Victim\nSpecialist for the West Palm Beach FBI office, under the case agent's direction, prepared a \"Victim\nNotification Form\" naming 30 victims in the Epstein investigation and stating that \"additional\npertinent information\" about them was available in the VNS.273 Thereafter, the Victim Specialist\nentered individual victim contact information she received from the case agent into the VNS\nwhenever the case agent directed the Victim Specialist to generate an initial letter to a particular\nvictim. The FBI case agent told OPR that formal victim notification was \"always handled by the\n[FBI's Victim Specialist\n... [truncated, 3467 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/221 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=221]", "char_count": 3467}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 222, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 223 of 348\n\nU.S. Department of Justice\nTatra' Bureau of Investigation\nFBI - West Palm Beach\nSuke 500\n505 South Ftaglcr Drive\nWeft ?elm Beech, FL 33401\nPhone (561) 633-7517\nFat (561) r33.7970\nAugust 28, 2006\n\nRe: Cate Number\nDear\n\nYour name was refered to the FBI's Victim Assistance Program as being a possible via:m of a federal\ncrime. We appreciate your assistance and cooperation whsle we an investigating this case. We would like to\nwake you aware of the victim services that may be available :o you and b answer any questiats you tray have\nregarding the criminal justice process throughout the invatiption. Oar programs part of the FBI's effort to\nensure the victims aro treated with respect and are provided ilk:creation about their rights under federal law.\nThese rights include notification of the status of the case. Tan enclosed trochwcs provide infommtion about the\nE3rs Victim Assistance Program, resources and instructions for acomsing tic Victim Notification System\n(YNS). Wei is designed to provide you wth information regarding the Man of you case.\nlit cat Is ourently trader investigation This an be a lengthy process and we request your continued\npatience whik we conduct a thorough InvenignIon.\nAsa crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 Nance States Code § 377I: (I) The right to be\nreasonably prutected from the ionised; (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely mice of ar.y public\ncourt proceeding, or eay parole precceding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused; (3)\nThe right rot to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, inlets the court, ester receiving clear and\nconvincing es idence, determines that testimony by to victim would be materially altered if the victim beard\nother testimony at Mat proceeding; (4) The right tote reasonably heard of any public proceeding in the district\ncoup involving release, (Cork sentencing, or any parole preceallng; \n... [truncated, 3646 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/222 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=222]", "char_count": 3646}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 223, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 224 of 348\n\nIf yon have additional qitttions which involve this matt/. pleas: contact the office listed above. When\nyou cal:, please provide the file number located az the top of this Icier. Please remanba, you participation in\nthe totfficaticn part of this proven is Noluntary. In circlet toco:ileac to receive notifications, it is your\nresponsibility to keep you contact information eurrClIt\nSincerely,\n\nVictim Spedalli\n\nVNS data logs, correspondence maintained in the FBI's case management system, and FBI\ninterview reports for the Epstein investigation reflect that, during the Epstein investigation, the\nFBI generally issued its victim notification letters after the victim had been interviewed by FBI\ncase agents, but its practice was not uniform. 275\nB.\n\nAugust 2006: The USAO's Letters to Victims\n\nDuring the time that the FBI Victim Specialist was preparing and sending FBI victim\nnotification letters, Villafafia was also preparing her own introductory letter in anticipation of\nmeeting with each victim receiving the letter. Villafafia told OPR that she was \"generally aware\nthat the FBI sends letters\" but believed the FBI's \"process didn't ... have anything to do with my\nprocess.\" Villafafia told OPR the \"FBI had their own victim notification system and their own\nguidelines for when information had to be provided and what information had to be provided.\"\nMoreover, Villafafia \"didn't know when [FBI] letters went out\" or \"what they said.\"276\nNevertheless, Villafafia told OPR that she did not intend for the letters she drafted to interfere with\nthe FBI's notification responsibilities.\nIn August 2006, Villafafia drafted her letters to victims who had been initially identified\nby the FBI based on the PBPD investigative file. Villafafia told OPR that she \"made the decision\nto make contact with victims early,\" and she composed the introductory letter and determined to\nwhom they would be sent. Although these letters co\n... [truncated, 3393 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/223 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=223]", "char_count": 3393}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 224, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 225 of 348\n\nquestions,\" she wanted to \"make sure that they ... feel like they can trust me.\" Villafafia directed\nthe FBI case agents to hand deliver the letters \"as they were conducting interviews.\" Villafafia\ntold OPR that the USAO had \"no standardized way to do any victim notifications prior to\" the\nfiling of federal charges, and therefore Villafafia did not use a template or VNS-generated letter\nfor content, but instead used a letter she \"had created and crafted [herself] for another case.\"277\nThe letters contained contact information for Villafafia, the FBI case agent, and the\nDepartment's Office for Victims of Crime in Washington, D.C., and itemized the CVRA rights.\nThe USAO letters described the case as \"under investigation\" and stated that the victim would be\nnotified \"[i]f anyone is charged in connection with the investigation.\" The letters stated that, in\naddition to their rights under the CVRA, victims were entitled to counseling, medical services, and\npotential restitution from the perpetrator, and that, upon request, the government would provide a\nlist of counseling and medical services.' Lastly, the letters advised that investigators for the\ndefense might contact the victims and those who felt threatened or harassed should contact\nVillafafia or the FBI case agent.\nAlthough the USAO letters did not contain any language limiting CVRA rights to the postarrest or indictment stage, Villafafia told OPR that she did not intend for the letters to activate the\nUSAO's CVRA obligations, which she believed attached only after the filing of a criminal charge.\nVillafaiia told OPR that she did not think that victims potentially receiving both an FBI letter and\na USAO letter would be confused about their CVRA rights because the USAO letter \"was coming\nwith an introduction from the agents [who were hand delivering them].\" Later, in the course of\nthe CVRA litigation, Villafafia stated that she and the investiga\n... [truncated, 3829 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/224 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=224]", "char_count": 3829}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 225, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 226 of 348\n\n[A]s Chief of the Criminal Division of the USAO, I did not consider\nit to be within my purview to ensure that appropriate victim\nnotifications occurred in every matter investigated or brought by the\nOffice. I also recall that the USAO employed one or more victimwitness coordinators to work with line prosecutors to ensure that\nappropriate victim notifications occurred in every matter\ninvestigated or brought by the Office.\nC.\n\nUSAO and FBI Letters Are Hand Delivered\n\nThe FBI case agent told OPR that the FBI made its notifications \"at the time that we met\n[with] the girls.\" The case agent recalled that she hand delivered the USAO letters and FBI letters\nto some victims following in-person interviews, and in the instances when she did not provide a\nvictim with a letter, she provided an FBI pamphlet containing CVRA rights information similar to\nthat set forth in the FBI letters.28° The co-case agent also recalled that he may have delivered \"a\nfew\" letters to victims. The FBI Victim Specialist told OPR that she mailed some FBI letters to\nvictims and she provided some FBI letters to the case agent for hand delivery.\nNevertheless, the case agent told OPR that she \"did not sit there and go through every\nright\" with the victims. She stated, however, \"[I]n the beginning whether it was through [the FBI\nVictim Specialist] giving the letter, me giving a letter, the pamphlet, I believed that the girls knew\nthat they were victims and had rights, and they had a resource, [the FBI Victim Specialist], that\nthey could call for that.\" The FBI case agent further explained that once the case agents connected\nthe FBI Victim Specialist with each victim, the Victim Specialist handled the victims' \"rights and\nresources.\"\nVI.\n\nAUGUST 2006 - SEPTEMBER 2007: FBI AND USAO CONTACTS WITH\nVICTIMS BEFORE THE NPA IS SIGNED\n\nEarly in the investigation, Villafafia informed her supervisors that, up to that point,\n\"everyone whom the \n... [truncated, 3217 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/225 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=225]", "char_count": 3217}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 226, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 227 of 348\n\ngovernment informed any victim about the potential for resolving the federal investigation through\na state plea.\nA.\n\nThe Case Agents and Villafafia Solicit Some Victims' Opinions about\nResolving the Federal Investigation\n\nVillafafia told OPR that when she and the case agents met with victims, \"we would ask\nthem how they wanted the case to be resolved.\"281\nAnd most of them wanted the case to be resolved via a plea. Some\nof them wanted him not to be prosecuted at all. Most of them did\nnot want to have to come to court and testify. They were very\nworried about their privacy rights. Some of them wanted him to go\nto jail. But . . . [s]ome of them talked about bad experiences with\nthe State Attorney's Office. And so, I felt like sending them back to\nthe State Attorney's Office was not something that they would have\nsupported.\nVillafafia told OPR that she also recalled that some victims \"expressed . . . concern about\ntheir safety,\" and were worried that Epstein would find out about their participation in the\ninvestigation. In her 2017 declaration submitted in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia stated that the\ntwo CVRA petitioners \"never communicated [their] desires to me or the FBI case agents and my\nrole was to evaluate the entire situation, consider the input received from all of the victims, and\nallow the Office to exercise its prosecutorial discretion accordingly.\"282 She also noted that some\nvictims \"fear[ed] having their involvement with Epstein revealed and the negative impact it would\nhave on their relationships with family members, boyfriends, and others.\"\nIn the FBI case agent's 2017 declaration filed in the CVRA litigation, she stated, \"During\ninterviews conducted from 2006 to 2008, no victims expressed a strong opinion that Epstein be\nprosecuted.\" She further described the concerns of some of the victims:\nThroughout the investigation, we interviewed many [of Epstein's]\nvictims .... A majority\n... [truncated, 3270 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/226 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=226]", "char_count": 3270}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 227, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 228 of 348\n\nfor some victims, learning of the Epstein investigation and possible\nexposure of their identities caused them emotional distress. Overall,\nmany of the victims were troubled about the existence of the\ninvestigation. They displayed feelings of embarrassment and\nhumiliation and were reluctant to talk to investigators. Some\nvictims who were identified through the investigation refused even\nto speak to us. Our concerns about the victims' well-being and\ngetting to the truth were always at the forefront of our handling of\nthe investigation.\nThe case agent told OPR that although she encountered victims who were \"strong\" and\n\"believable,\" she did not encounter any who vigorously advocated for the prosecution of Epstein.\nRather, \"they were embarrassed,\" \"didn't want their parents to know,\" and \"wanted to forget.\"283\nAs of September 24, 2007, the date the NPA was signed, Villafafia informed Epstein\nattorney Leflcowitz that she had compiled a preliminary list of victims including \"34 confirmed\nminors\" and 6 other potential minor victims who had not yet been interviewed by the FBI.2M\nAlthough the government had contacted many victims before the NPA was signed, Villafafia\nacknowledged during the CVRA litigation that \"individual victims were not consulted regarding\nthe agreement.\"\nB.\n\nBefore the NPA Is Signed, Villafafia Expresses Concern That Victims Have\nNot Been Consulted\n\nBefore the NPA was signed, Villafafia articulated to her supervisors concerns about the\ngovernment's failure to consult with victims.\n1.\n\nJuly 2007: Villafafia's Email Exchanges with Menchel\n\nIn July 2007, Villafafia learned that Menchel had discussed with defense counsel\na possible state resolution to the federal investigation of Epstein. Villafafia was upset by this\ninformation, and sent a strongly worded email to Menchel voicing her concerns. (A full account\nof their email exchange is set forth at Chapter Two, Part One, Section IV.A.2\n... [truncated, 3097 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/227 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=227]", "char_count": 3097}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 228, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 229 of 348\n\nvarious iterations of the victims' rights legislation.\"285 Villafatia explained to OPR her reference\nto the victims:\n[M]y concern was that [Menchel] was violating the CVRA which\nrequires the attorneys for the government, which[] includes me[,] to\nconfer with the victims, and the [VRRA], which requires the agents\nto keep the victims apprised of what's happening with the case. So\nin essence, I felt like he was exposing both myself and the agents to\nallegations of not abiding by our obligations by engaging in these\nplea negotiations without letting us know about it.286\nIn his reply to Villafafia's email, and after noting that he found her email \"totally\ninappropriate,\" Menchel denied that he had violated any Departmental policy, and he noted that\n\"[a]s Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the U.S. Attorney to exercise\nappropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and consistent with\"\nDepartmental policy. Perceiving Menchel's rebuke as a criticism of her judgment, Villafafia\nresponded, \"[R]aising concerns about the forgotten voices of victims in this case should not be\nclassified as a lapse injudgment\" and that her \"first and only concern in this case ... is the victims.\"\nMenchel told OPR that he did not view his conversation with\nas a plea offer,\nasserted that he was not obligated to consult with victims during preliminary settlement\nnegotiations, and noted that he left the USAO before the NPA was fully negotiated or signed.\nMenchel told OPR that \"you have discussions . . . with [the] defense all the time, and the notion\nthat even just having a general discussion is something that must be vetted with victims ... is not\neven . . . in the same universe as to how I think about this.\" Menchel also observed that on the\nvery day that Villafaila criticized him for engaging in settlement ',ions\nwithout consulting\nher, the FBI, or the victims, Villafafia \n... [truncated, 3309 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/228 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=228]", "char_count": 3309}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 229, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\n2.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 230 of 348\n\nVillafana Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not to\nConsult Victims about the Plea Discussions, but Her Supervisors Do\nNot Currently Recall Such Instructions\n\nVillafatia told OPR that during an \"early\" meeting with Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel,\nwhich took place when \"we were probably just entering into plea negotiations,\" she raised the\ngovernment's obligation to confer with victims!\" Initially, Villafafia told OPR she was\ninstructed, \"Don't talk to [the victims]. Don't tell them what's happening,\" but she was not told\nwhy she should not speak to the victims, and she could not recall who gave her this instruction. In\na subsequent OPR interview, Villafaiia recalled that when she raised the issue of notification\nduring the meeting, she was told, \"Plea negotiations are confidential. You can't disclose them.\"2\"\nVillafafia remained uncertain who gave her this instruction, but believed it may have been Acosta.\nNeither Acosta, Sloman, nor Menchel recalled a meeting at which Villafafia was directed\nnot to notify the victims. Acosta told OPR that the decision whether to solicit the victims' view\n\"is something [that] I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused\non at least at this time,\" and he did not \"recall discussions about victim notification until after the\nNPA was signed.\" Sloman also told OPR that he did not recall a meeting at which victim\nnotification was discussed. Menchel wrote in his response to OPR, \"I have no recollection of any\ndiscussions or decisions regarding whether the USAO should notify victims ofits intention to enter\ninto a pre-charge disposition of the Epstein matter.\" Furthermore, Menchel told OPR he could not\nthink of a reason why the issue of victim notification would have arisen before he left the USAO,\nbecause \"we were way off from finalizing or having anything even close to a deal,\" and it would\nhave been \"premature\" to conside\n... [truncated, 3917 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/229 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=229]", "char_count": 3917}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 230, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 231 of 348\n\nChief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal.\"29I Sloman forwarded this\nemail to Acosta. Villafafia recalled that Sloman responded to her email by telephone, possibly\nafter he had spoken to Acosta, and stated, \"[Y]ou can't do that now.\" Villafafia did not recall\nSloman explaining at the time the reason for that instruction.\nVillafafia told OPR that shortly before the NPA was signed, Sloman told her, \"[W]e've\nbeen advised that . . . pre-charge resolutions do not require victim notification.\" Sloman did not\nrecall any discussions, before the NPA was signed, about contacting the victims or conferring with\nthem regarding the potential resolution of the case. Sloman told OPR that he \"did not think that\nwe had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA,\" and \"we did not have to seek\napproval from victims to resolve a case. We did have an obligation to notify them ofthe resolution\nin . . . filed cases.\" Sloman said that no one other than Villafafia raised the notification issue, and\nbecause the USAO envisioned a state court resolution of the matter, Sloman \"did not think that we\nhad to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA.\" Lourie told OPR that he had no\nmemory of Villafafia being directed not to speak to the victims about the NPA.292 Similarly, the\nattorney who assumed Lourie's supervisory duties after Lourie transitioned to his detail in the\nDepartment told OPR that he did not recall any discussions regarding victim notification and he\n\"assumed that was being handled.\"293\nAcosta did not recall the September 6, 2007 email, but told OPR that \"there is no\nrequirement to notify [the victims], because it's not a plea, it's deferring in favor of a state\nprosecution.\" Acosta told OPR that he could not recall any \"pre-NPA discussions\" regarding\nvictim notification or any particular concern that factored into the decision not to consult with the\nvictims bef\n... [truncated, 3984 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/230 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=230]", "char_count": 3984}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 231, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 232 of 348\n\ndisagreement\" regarding the CVRA's requirements.295 Oosterbaan's disagreement was based on\npolicy considerations, and he told OPR that \"from a policy perspective,\" CEOS would not \"take a\nposition that you wouldn't consult with [the victims].\" Oosterbaan also told OPR that whether or\nnot the law required it, the victims should have been given an opportunity \"to weigh in directly,\"\nbut he did not fault the USAO's motivations for failing to provide that opportunity:\nThe people I know, Andy [Lourie], Jeff [Sloman], . were trying\nto do the right thing. . . . [T]hey weren't acting unethically. I just\ndisagree with the outcome . . . but the point is they weren't trying\n... to do anything improper .. . it was more of this question of . . .\nyou can let the victims weigh in on this, you can get their input on\nthis and maybe it doesn't sway you. You still do what you're going\nto do but . . . it's hard to say it was a complete, completely clean\nexercise of . . . prosecutorial discretion when [the USAO] didn't\nreally know what [the victims] would say.\nSloman told OPR, \"I don't think we had a concern about entering into the NPA at that point\nin terms of notifying victims. . . . I was under the perception that once the NPA was entered into\nand [Epstein] was going to enter a guilty plea in state court that we were going to notify the\nvictims.\"\nVII.\n\nSEPTEMBER 24, 2007 - JUNE 30, 2008: AFTER THE NPA IS SIGNED, THE\nUSAO MAKES VARIOUS VICTIM NOTIFICATION DECISIONS\n\nThe contemporaneous emails make clear that once the NPA was signed, Villafafta and the\ncase agents planned to inform the victims about the resolution of the federal investigation.\nHowever, the emails also show that the USAO was unclear about how much information could be\ngiven to the victims in light of the NPA's nondisclosure provision and consulted with Epstein's\ndefense counsel regarding victim notifications.296 As a result, although the expectation\n... [truncated, 3213 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/231 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=231]", "char_count": 3213}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 232, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nA.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 233 of 348\n\nSeptember — October 2007: The Case Agents Notify Some Victims about the\nNPA, but Stop When the Case Agent Becomes Concerned about Potential\nImpeachment\n\nIn transmitting the signed NPA to Villafafia on September 24, 2007, defense attorney\nLetkowitz asked Villafafia to \"do whatever you can to prevent [the NPA] from becoming\npublic.\"297 Villafaila forwarded this email to Acosta, Lourie, and the new West Palm Beach\nmanager noting that, \"I don't intend to do anything with it except put it in the case file.\" Acosta\nresponded that he \"thought the [NPA] already binds us not to make [it] public except as required\nby law or [FOIA]\" and noted that because the USAO would not proactively inform the media\nabout the NPA, \"this is the State Attorneyns show.\"2\" Acosta added, \"In other words, what more\ndoes he want?\" Villafafia responded, \"My guess is that if we tell anyone else (like the police chief\nor FBI or the girls), that we ask them not to disclose.\" Lourie agreed, noting that \"there really is\nno reason to tell anyone all the details of the non pros or provide a copy. The [PBPD] Chief was\nonly concerned that he not get surprised by all this.\"M9 Acosta responded that he would set up a\ncall on September 26, 2007, to talk \"about who we can tell and how much.\"300\nAlso on September 24, 2007, Villafafia emailed the new West Palm Beach manager to\ninform him that once the attorney representative was appointed for the victims, she planned to\n\"meet with the girls myself to explain how the system [for obtaining relief under 18 U.S.C. § 2255]\nwill work.\" Villafafia also emailed Lefkowitz stating that she planned to discuss with him \"what\nI can tell [the attorney representative] and the girls about the agreement,\" and she assured\nLeflcowitz that her office \"is telling Chief Reiter not to disclose the outcome to anyone.\" Villafaila\nalso provided Lefkowitz with a list of potential candidates for the attorney represe\n... [truncated, 3815 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/232 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=232]", "char_count": 3815}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 233, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 234 of 348\n\ninvolved in such notifications. According to Villafafia, Sloman then directed her to have the case\nagents make the victim notifications.\nAccordingly, Villafafia directed the case agents to \"meet with the victims to provide them\nwith information regarding the terms of the [NPA] and the conclusion of the federal investigation.\"\nThe case agent told OPR, \"[T]here was a discussion that\nand I had as\nto . .. how we would tell them, and what we would tell them, and what that was I don't recall, but\nit was the terms of the agreement.\" Villafafia believed that if \"victims were properly notified of\nthe terms [of the NPA] that applied to them, regarding their right to seek damages from [Epstein],\nand he paid those damages, that the rest of the [NPA] doesn't need to be disclosed.\" Villafafia\n\"anticipated that [the case agents] would be able to inform the victims of the date of the state court\nchange of plea [hearing], but that date had not yet been set by state authorities at the time the first\nvictims were notified [by the FBI].\" Villafafia told OPR that it was her belief that because the\nUSAO had agreed to a confidentiality clause, the government could not disclose the NPA to the\ngeneral public, but victims could be informed \"because by its terms they needed to be told what\nthe agreement was about.\" Villafafia told OPR that no one in her supervisory chain expressed a\nconcern that if victims learned of the NPA, they would try to prevent Epstein from entering a plea.\nWithin a week after the NPA was signed, news media began reporting that the parties had\nreached a deal to resolve the Epstein case. For example, on October 1, 2007, the\nNew York Post reported that Epstein \"has agreed to plead guilty to soliciting underage prostitutes\nat his Florida mansion in a deal that will send him to prison for about 18 months,\" and noted that\nEpstein would plead guilty in state court and that \"the feds have agreed to drop \n... [truncated, 3819 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/233 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=233]", "char_count": 3819}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 234, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 235 of 348\n\nDuring this meeting, the Agents did not explain that an agreement\nhad already been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein\nfor federal charges against me. I did not get the opportunity to meet\nor confer with the prosecuting attorneys about any potential federal\ndeal that related to me or the crimes committed against me.\nMy understanding of the agents' explanation was that the federal\ninvestigation would continue. I also understood that my own case\nwould move forward towards prosecution of Epstein.\nIn addition, the case agent spoke to two other victims and relayed their reactions to\nVillafafia in an email:\nJane Doe #I4 asked me why [Epstein] was receiving such a lite [sic]\njail sentence and Jane Doe #13 has asked for our Victim Witness\ncoordinator to get in touch with her so she can receive some much\nneeded [p]rofessional counseling. Other than that, their response\nwas filled with emotion and grateful to the Federal authorities for\npursuing justice and not giving up.\"3\nThe case agent told OPR that when she informed one of these victims, that individual cried and\nexpressed \"a sense of relief.\" Counsel for \"Jane Doe #I3\" told OPR that while his client recalled\nmeeting with the FBI on a number of occasions, she did not recall receiving any information about\nEpstein's guilty plea. In a letter to OPR, \"Jane Doe #14's\" attorney stated that although her client\nrecalled speaking with an FBI agent, she was not told about the NPA or informed that Epstein\nwould not face federal charges in exchange for his state court plea.\nAfter meeting with these three victims, the FBI case agent became concerned that, if\nEpstein breached the NPA and the case went to federal trial, the defense could use the victims'\nknowledge of the NPA's monetary damages provision as a basis to impeach the victims.304 The\ncase agent explained to OPR that she became \"uncomfortable\" talking to the victims about the\ndamages provisi\n... [truncated, 3358 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/234 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=234]", "char_count": 3358}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 235, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 236 of 348\n\nfor [victims] to enhance their stories\" and that the defense would try to have Villafafia or the case\nagents removed from the case.\nBoth the lead case agent and Villafafia told OPR that after the FBI raised with Villafafia\nthe concern that notifying the victims would create potential impeachment material in the event of\na breach and subsequent trial, they contacted the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer for\nadvice. Villafafia recalled that during a brief telephone consultation, the Professional\nResponsibility Officer advised her and the case agent that \"it's not really that big a concern, but if\nyou're concerned about it then you should stop making the notification.\"305 In her 2017 CVRA\ndeclaration, the case agent stated that after conferring with the USAO, the case agents stopped\nnotifying victims about the NPA.\nB.\n\nOctober 2007: Defense Attorneys Object to Government Victim Notifications\n\nWhile the case agents and Villafafia considered the impact that notifying the victims about\nthe resolution of the case might have on a potential trial, defense counsel also raised concerns\nabout what the victims could be told about the NPA. As discussed in Chapter Two after the NPA\nwas signed on September 24, 2007, the USAO proposed using a special\nto select the\nattorney representative for the victims, which led to further discussions about the § 2255 provision.\nOn October 5, 2007, when defense attorney Lefkowitz sent Villafafia a letter responding to the\nUSAO's proposal to use a special =\nhe cautioned that \"neither federal agents nor anyone\nfrom your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the\ncase\" because such communications would \"violate the confidentiality of the agreement\" and\nwould prevent Epstein from having control over \"what is communicated to the identified\nindividuals at this most critical stage.\" Lefkowitz followed this communication with an \n... [truncated, 3587 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/235 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=235]", "char_count": 3587}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 236, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 237 of 348\n\nand thanking Acosta for agreeing on October 12, 2007, not to \"contact any of the identified\nindividuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this\nmatter.\"707 Shortly thereafter, Sloman drafted a response to Leflcowitz's letter, which Acosta\nrevised to clarify the \"inaccurate\" representations made by Leflcowitz, in particular noting that\nAcosta did not agree to a \"gag order\" with regard to victim contact. The draft response, as revised\nby Acosta, stated:\nYou should understand, however, that there are some\ncommunications that are typical in these matters. As an example,\nour Office has an obli ation to contact the victims to inform them\nthat either [the Special,\nor his designee, will be contact[ing]\nthem. Rest assured that we will continue to treat this matter as we\nwould any similarly situated case.\"'\nIn a November 5, 2007 letter, Sloman complained to Lefkowitz that private investigators\nworking for Epstein had been contacting victims and asking whether government agents had\ndiscussed financial settlement with them. Sloman noted that the private investigators' \"actions are\ntroublesome because the FBI agents legally are required to advise the victims of the resolution of\nthe matter, which includes informing them that, as part of the resolution, Mr. Epstein has agreed\nto pay damages in some circumstances.\" The same day, Villafaiia emailed Sloman expressing her\nconcern that \"if we [file charges] now, cross-examination will consist of- 'and the government told\nyou that if Mr. Epstein is convicted, you are entitled to a large amount of damages, right?'\"3\"\nC.\n\nOctober — November 2007: The FBI and the USAO Continue to Investigate,\nand the FBI Sends a Notice Letter to One Victim Stating That the Case is\n\"Under Investigation\"\n\nAlthough Villafafla and the FBI case agents decided to stop informing victims about the\nNPA, the FBI continued its investigation of the\n... [truncated, 3484 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/236 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=236]", "char_count": 3484}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 237, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 238 of 348\n\nNPA.310 The FBI reports of the victim interviews do not mention the NPA or indicate that the\nvictims were asked for their input regarding the resolution of the case. Villafafta acknowledged\nthat she and the case agents did not tell any of the \"new\" post-NPA-signing victims about the\nagreement because \"at that point we believed that the NPA was never going to be performed and\nthat we were in fact going to be [charging] Mr. Epstein.\"\nOn October 12, 2007, the FBI Victim Specialist sent a VNS form notice letter to a victim\nthe case agents had interviewed two days earlier. This letter was identical to the VNS form notice\nletter the FBI Victim Specialist sent to other victims before the NPA was signed, describing the\ncase as \"under investigation\" and requesting the victim's \"patience.\" The letter listed the eight\nCVRA rights, but made no mention of the NPA or the § 2255 provision. Villafafta told OPR she\nwas unaware the FBI sent the letter, but she knew \"there were efforts to make sure that we had\nidentified all victims of the crimes under investigation.\" In response to OPR's questions about the\naccuracy of the FBI letter's characterization of the case as \"under investigation,\" Villafaiia told\nOPR that the NPA required Epstein to enter a plea by October 26, 2008, and \"at this point we\nweren't actively looking for additional charges,\" but \"the investigation wasn't technically\nsuspended until he completed all the terms of the NPA.\"\nD.\n\nThe USAO Informs the Defense That It Intends to Notify Victims by Letter\nabout Epstein's State Plea Hearing and the Resolution of the Federal\nInvestigation, but the Defense Strongly Objects to the Notification Plan\n\nIn anticipation of Epstein's state court plea, Villafafta reported on November 16, 2007, to\nAcosta, Sloman, and other supervisors that she had learned, from FBI agents who met with\nAssistant State Attorney Belohlavek, that the State Attorney's Office wanted t\n... [truncated, 3343 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/237 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=237]", "char_count": 3343}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 238, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 239 of 348\n\nshe would inform victims of the terms of the resolution of the federal case, including Epstein's\nagreement to plead guilty to state charges and serve 18 months in county jail, and the victims'\nability to seek monetary damages against Epstein. The letter also would invite victims to appear\nat the state court hearing and make a statement under oath or provide a written statement to be\nfiled by the State Attorney's Office. Sloman and Villafafla exchanged edits on the draft victim\nnotification letter, and Villafaiia also informed Sloman that \"[t]here are a few girls who didn't\nreceive the original letters, so I will need to modify the introductory portion of the letter for\nthose.\"312\nSloman informed Lefkowitz of the government's need to meet its \"statutory obligation\n(Justice for All Act of 2004) to notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their\nrights associated with the agreement\" and his intent to \"notify the victims by letter after COB\nThursday, November 29.\" Lefkowitz objected to the proposal to notify the victims, asserting that\nit was \"incendiary and inappropriate\" and not warranted under the Justice for All Act of 2004. He\nargued that the defense \"should have a right to review and make objections to that submission\nprior to it being sent to any alleged victims.\" He also insisted that if any notification letters were\nsent to \"victims, who still have not been identified to us, it should happen only after Mr. Epstein\nhas entered his plea\" and that the letter should come from the attorney representative rather than\nthe government. On November 28, 2007, at Sloman's instruction, Villafafla provided Lefkowitz\nwith the draft victim notification letter, which would advise victims that the state court plea was\nto occur on December 14, 2007.313\nIn a November 29, 2007 letter to Acosta, Lefkowitz strongly objected to the proposed draft\nnotification letter, arguing that the government wa\n... [truncated, 3975 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/238 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=238]", "char_count": 3975}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 239, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 240 of 348\n\nthe USAO's interpretation of the agreement and \"the use of Section 2255.\" The Starr and\nLefkowitz letter asserted it was \"wholly inappropriate\" for the USAO to send the proposed victim\nnotification letter \"under any circumstances,\" and \"strongly urg[ed]\" Acosta to withhold the\nnotification letter until after the defense was able \"to discuss this matter with Assistant Attorney\nGeneral Fisher.\"\nThe following day, Sloman sent a letter to Lefkowitz, with copies to Acosta and Villafafta,\nasserting that the VRRA obligated the government to notify victims of the 18 U.S.C. § 2255\nproceedings as \"other relief' to which they were entitled. Sloman also stated that the VRRA\nobligated the government to provide the victims with information concerning restitution to which\nthey may be entitled and \"the earliest possible\" notice of the status of the investigation, the filing\nof charges, and the acceptance of a *tom (Emphasis in original). Sloman added:\nJust as in 18 U.S.C. § 3771 [the CVRA], these sections are not\nlimited to proceedings in a federal district court. Our NonProsecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by\nallowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims\nidentified through the federal investigation should be appropriately\ninformed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not require the\nU.S. Attorney's Office to forego [sic] its legal obligations.3t5\nSloman also addressed the defense objection to advising the victims to contact Villafafta or the\nFBI case agent with questions or concerns: \"Again, federal law requires that victims have the\n'reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in this case.\" Sloman advised\nthe defense: \"The three victims who were notified prior to your objection had questions directed\nto Mr. Epstein's punishment, not the civil litigation. Those questions are appropriately directed to\nlaw enforcement.\"\nAlong with this letter, Sloman f\n... [truncated, 3463 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/239 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=239]", "char_count": 3463}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 240, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 241 of 348\n\nin Courtroom 11F at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North\nDixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida. Pursuant to Florida\nStatutes Sections 960.001(1)(k) and 921.143(1), you are entitled to\nbe present and to make a statement under oath. If you choose, you\ncan submit a written statement under oath, which may be filed by\nthe State Attorney's Office on your behalf. If you elect to prepare a\nwritten statement, it should address the following:\nthe facts of the case and the extent of any harm, including\nsocial, psychological, or physical harm, financial losses, loss\nof earnings directly or indirectly resulting from the crime for\nwhich the defendant is being sentenced, and any matter\nrelevant to an appropriate disposition and sentence. Fl[a].\nStat. [§) 921.143(2).\nSloman told OPR that he was \"proceeding under the belief that we were going to notify [the\nvictims], even though it wasn't a federal case. Whether we were required or not.\" Sloman also\ntold OPR that while \"we didn't think that we had an obligation to send them victim notification\nletters . I think . . .\nand . . . the agents . . . were keeping the victims apprised at some\nlevel.\"\nOn December 7, 2007, Villafafia prepared letters containing the above information to be\nsent to multiple victims and emailed Acosta and Slornasuesting permission to send them.316\nSloman, however, had that day received a letter from\nadvising that Epstein's plea hearing\nwas scheduled for January 4, 2008, and requesting that the USAO \"hold off\" sending the victim\nnotification letters until \"we can further discuss the contents.\" Also that day, Starr and Leflcowitz\nsubmitted to Acosta the two lengthy \"independent ethics opinions\" supporting the defense\narguments against the federal investigation and the NPA's use of 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Sloman\nresponded to Villafaiia's request with an email instructing her to \"Hold the letter.\"3\" Sloman told\nOPR that he \"wanted to push th\n... [truncated, 3545 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/240 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=240]", "char_count": 3545}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 241, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 242 of 348\n\nher a victim for purposes of the federal charges, and continued to treat her as a victim because she\nwanted \"to go above and beyond in terms of caring for the victims.\"'\nE.\n\nDecember 19, 2007: Acosta Advises the Defense That the USAO Will Defer to\nthe State Attorney the Decision Whether to Notify Victims of the State Plea\nHearing, but the USAO Would Notify Them of the Federal Resolution. \"as\nRequired by Law\"\n\nOn December II, 2007, Starr transmitted to Acosta two lengthy submissions authored by\nLefkowitz presenting substantive challenges to the NPA and to \"the background and conduct of\nthe investigation\" into Epstein. Regarding issues relevant to victim notification, in his transmittal\nletter, Starr asserted that the \"latest episodes involving [§] 2255 notification to the alleged victims\nput illustratively in bold relief our concerns that the ends of justice, time and time again, are not\nbeing served.\" By way of example, Starr complained the government had recently inappropriately\nprovided \"oral notification of the victim notification letter\" to one girl's attorney, even though it\nwas clear from the girl's recorded FBI interview that she \"did not in any manner view herself as a\nvictim.\"\nIn his submissions, Lefkowitz argued that the government was not required to notify\nvictims of the § 2255 provision:\nVillafafia's decision to utilize a civil remedy statute in the place of\na restitution fund for the alleged victims eliminates the notification\nrequirement under the Justice for All Act of 2004, a federal law that\nrequires federal authorities to notify victims as to any available\nrestitution, not of any potential civil remedies. Despite this fact,\n[she] proposed a Victims Notification letter to be sent to the alleged\nfederal victims.\nLefkowitz also argued that a victim trust fund would provide a more appropriate\nmechanism for compensating the victims than the government's proposed use of 18 U.S.C. §\n... [truncated, 3308 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/241 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=241]", "char_count": 3308}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 242, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 243 of 348\n\ninformed victims \"of their right to collect damages prior to a thorough investigation of their\nallegations against Mr. Epstein\":\nNone of the victims were informed of the right to sue under\nSection 2255 prior to the investigation of the claims. Three victims\nwere notified shortly after the signing of the [NPA] of the general\nterms of that Agreement. You raised objections to any victim\nnotification, and no further notifications were done. Throughout\nthis process you have seen that I have prepared this case as though\nit would proceed to trial. Notifying the witnesses of the possibility\nof damages claims prior to concluding the matter by plea or trial\nwould only undermine my case. If my reassurances are insufficient\nthe fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr. Epstein\nshould assure you of the integrity of the investigation.\nOn December 14, 2007, Villafafia forwarded to Acosta the draft victim notification letter\npreviously sent to the defense, along with two draft letters addressed to State Attorney Krischer;\nVillafafia's transmittal email to Acosta had the subject line, \"The letters you requested.\" One of\nthe draft letters to Krischer, to be signed by Villafafia, was to advise that the USAO had sent an\nenclosed victim notification letter to specified identified victims and referred to an enclosed \"list\nof the identified victims and their contact information, in case you are required to provide them\nwith any further notification regarding their rights under Florida law.\"319 The second draft letter\nto Krischer, for Acosta's signature, requested that Krischer respond to defense counsel's\nallegations that the State Attorney's Office was not comfortable with the proposed plea and\nsentence because it believed that the case should be resolved with probation and no sexual offender\nregistration. OPR found no evidence that these letters were sent to ICrischer.32°\nA few days later, in an appar\n... [truncated, 3551 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/242 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=242]", "char_count": 3551}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 243, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 244 of 348\n\nreview the appropriateness of the potential federal charges and the government's \"unprecedentedly\nexpansive interpretation\" of 18 U.S.C. § 2255.\nIn a December 19, 2007 response to the defense team, Acosta offered to revise two\nparagraphs in the NPA to resolve \"disagreements\" with the defense and to clarify that the parties\nintended Epstein's § 2255 liability to \"place these identified victims in the same position as they\nwould have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less.\" Acosta also advised\nthat although the USAO intended to notify the victims of the resolution of the federal investigation,\nthe USAO would leave to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the state\nproceedings:\nI understand that the defense objects to the victims being given\nnotice of [the] time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court sentencing\nhearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and\nthe statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft\nletter to the defense as a courtesy. In addition, First Assistant United\nStates Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several\nedits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that [the\nCVRA] applies to notice of proceedings and results of investigations\nof federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We intend to provide\nvictims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We\nwill defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether\nhe wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings,\nalthough we will provide him with the information necessary to do\nso if he wishes.\nAcosta told OPR that he \"would not have sent this letter without running it by [Sloman], if\nnot other individuals in the office,\" and records show he sent a draft to Sloman and Villafafta.\nAcosta explained to OPR that he was not concerned about deferring to Krischer on the issue of\nwh\n... [truncated, 3965 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/243 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=243]", "char_count": 3965}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 244, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 245 of 348\n\nhave \"notified [the victims] that that was an all-encompassing plea, that that state court sentence\nwould also mean that the federal government was not proceeding.\"\nSloman told OPR that he thought Acosta and Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney\nGeneral Sigal Mandelker had agreed that the decision whether to notify the victims of the state\ncourt proceedings should be \"left to the state.\"323 Mandelker, however, had no memory of advising\nAcosta to defer the decision to make notifications to the State Attorney, and she noted that the\n\"correspondence [OPR] provided to me from that time period\" discussing such a decision\n\"demonstrates that all of the referenced language came from Mr. Acosta and/or his team, and that\nI did not provide, suggest, or edit the language.\" Sloman told OPR that he initially believed that\n\"the victims were going to be notified at some level, especially because they had restitution rights\nunder § 2255\"; but, his expectations changed after \"there was an agreement made that we were\ngoing to allow the state, since it was going to be a state case, to decide how the victims were going\nto be notified.\"\nAssistant State Attorney Belohlavek told OPR that she did not at any time receive a victim\nlist from the USAO. She further said she did not receive any request from the USAO with regard\nto contacting the victims.\nIn response to Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter, Lefkowitz asserted that the FBI should\nnot communicate with the victims, and that the state, not the USAO, should determine who can be\nheard at the sentencing hearing:\n[Y]our letter also suggests that our objection to your Office's\nproposed victims notification letter was that the women identified\nas victims of federal crimes should not be notified of the state\nproceedings. That is not true, as our previous letter clearly states.\nPutting aside our threshold contention that many of those to whom\n[CVRA] notification lette\n... [truncated, 3275 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/244 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=244]", "char_count": 3275}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 245, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 246 of 348\n\ndecision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is, amongst\nmany other issues, properly within the aegis of state decision\nmaking.324\nFollowing a conversation between Acosta and Lefkowitz, in which Acosta asked that the\ndefense clarify its positions on the USAO proposals regarding, among other things, notifications\nto the victims, Lefkowitz responded with a December 26, 2007 letter to Acosta, objecting again to\nnotification of the victims. Lefkowitz argued that CVRA notification was not appropriate because\nthe Attorney General Guidelines defined \"crime victim\" as a person harmed as a result of an\noffense charged in federal district court, and Epstein had not been charged in federal court.\nNevertheless, Lefkowitz added that, despite their objection to CVRA notification, \"[W]e do not\nobject (as we made clear in our letter last week) that some form of notice be given to the alleged\nvictims.\" Lefkowitz requested both that the defense be given an opportunity to review any notice\nsent by the USAO, and that \"any and all notices with respect to the alleged victims of state offenses\nshould be sent by the State Attorney rather than [the USAO],\" and he agreed that the USAO\n\"should defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding all matters with regard to those\nvictims and the state proceedings.\"\nMonths later, in April 2008, Epstein's attorneys complained in a letter to Mandelker that\nSloman and Villafafia committed professional misconduct by threatening to send a \"highly\nimproper and unusual 'victim notification letter' to all\" victims.\nF.\n\nJanuary — June 2008: While the Defense Presses Its Appeal to the Department\nin an Effort to Undo the NPA, the FBI and the USAO Continue Investigating\nEpstein\n\nAs described in Chapter Two of this Report, from the time the NPA was signed through\nthe end of June 2008, the defense employed various measures to delay, or avoid entirely,\nimplementation of the NP\n... [truncated, 3221 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/245 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=245]", "char_count": 3221}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 246, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 247 of 348\n\n\"federal authorities are expected to drop their probe into whether Epstein broke any federal\nlaws.\"32s\nNevertheless, as Epstein's team continued to argue to higher levels of the Department that\nthere was no appropriate federal interest in prosecuting Epstein and thus no basis for the NPA, and\nwith his attorneys asserting that \"the facts had gotten better for Epstein,\" Villafafia came to believe\nthat Epstein would likely breach the NPA.326 In January 2008, Villafafia informed her supervisors\nthat the FBI \"had very tight contact with the victims several months ago when we were prepared\nto [file charges], but all the shenanigans over the past few months have resulted in no contact with\nthe vast majority of the victims.\" Villafafia then proposed that the FBI \"re-establish contact with\nall the victims so that we know we can rely on them at trial.\"321 Villafafia told OPR that at this\npoint, \"[w]hile the case was being investigat[ed] and prepared for indictment, I did not prepare or\nsend any victim notification letters—there simply was nothing to update. I did not receive any\nvictim calls during this time.\"\n2.\n\nThe FBI Uses VNS Form Letters to Re-Establish Contact with Victims\n\nOn January 10, 2008, the FBI Victim Specialist mailed VNS generated victim notification\nletters to 14 victims articulating the eight CVRA rights and inviting recipients to update their\ncontact information with the FBI in order to obtain current information about the matter.328 The\ncase agent informed Villafafia in an email that the Victim Specialist sent a \"standard form [FBI]\nletter to all the remaining identified victims.\" These 2008 letters were identical to the FBI form\nletters the Victim Specialist had sent to victims between August 28, 2006, and October 12, 2007.\nLike those previous letters, most of which were sent before the NPA was signed on September 24,\n2007, the 2008 letters described the case as \"currently under inv\n... [truncated, 3919 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/246 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=246]", "char_count": 3919}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 247, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 248 of 348\n\nWe will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights\ndescribed. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the\narrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become\nthe responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office\nto ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the\nadvice of a private attorney with respect to these rights.\nThe FBI case agent informed Villafafia that the Victim Specialist sent the letters and would follow\nup with a phone call \"to offer assistance and ensure that [the victims] have received their letter.\"\nA sample letter is shown on the following pages.\nVillafafia told OPR that she did not recall discussing the content of the letters at the time\nthey were sent to the victims, or reviewing the letters until they were collected for the CVRA\nlitigation, sometime after July 2008. Rather, according to Villafafia, \"The decision to issue the\nletter and the wording of those letters were exclusively FBI decisions.\" Nevertheless, Villafafia\nasserted to OPR that from her perspective, the language regarding the ongoing investigation \"was\nabsolutely true and, despite being fully advised of our ongoing investigative activities, no one in\nmy supervisory chain ever told me that the case was not under investigation.\" Villafafia identified\nvarious investigative activities in which she engaged from \"September 2007 until the end of June\n2008,\" such as collecting and reviewing evidence; interviewing new victims; re-interviewing\nvictims; identifying new charges; developing new charging strategies; drafting supplemental\nprosecution memoranda; revising the charging package; and preparing to file charges. Similarly,\nthe FBI case agent told OPR that at the time the letters were sent the \"case was never closed and\nthe investigation was continuing.\" The co-case agent stated that the \"the case was open . . . it's\nnever been shut dow\n... [truncated, 2457 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/247 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=247]", "char_count": 2457}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 248, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 249 of 348\n\nU.S. Department of Justice\nFederal Bureau of inveaUgadoo\nFBI - West Palm Beach\nSuite 600\n506 South Flaglor Orbo\nWoM Palm beach, FL 33401\nPhone:(561)033.1517\na)c (561) 8.33-7970\nJet an( 10, 2003\n\nPo: Case Numb°\nDear\nThis case Is currently under investigation. We can ue a lengthy process and we request your\ncontinued patience while we conduct a thorough inverdignt'on.\nAs a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 UMted States Code § 3771: (1) The right to\nreasonably\nprotected from the accused: (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and tritely notice of any\nbe\npubic =art proceeding, or any parole proceeding, InvoMno the crime cr of any release or escape of the\naccused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such pu bile court proceeding, unless the court, after\nrexlving deer end convincing evidence, delormnes that testimony by the victim would be materially stared\nthe victim heard other testimony at duct pauctiedletc, (4) The tight tube reasonably heard at any public\nproceeding In tuts distrid court involving release. plea. sentencing, or any parole proceeding: (5) The\nreasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government In tho case; (8) rho right to full and timely\nresatidon a provided In law; (1) The right to proceedings Inc from unreasorrable delay; (8) The light to be\nboated with faeness Inc with respect for the victim's dgnity and privacy.\nWe will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights\npariah' lu events occurring alter the arrest or Indictment of an hdlitidual for the crime, and it At I became the\nresponsibility of the prosecuting Linked States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accomed hose tic hal. You\nmay also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to 'hose rights.\nThe Victim Notification System (VNS) Is designed to provide you with direct information regard:no the\ncase es I: pr0000ds through tho c\n... [truncated, 2818 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/248 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=248]", "char_count": 2818}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 249, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 250 of 348\n\nIf you have additorial questbns which Involve this matter, please contact the office listed atuwn. When\nyou call, please provide the fee number located et the top of this letter. Please remember, your participation\nIn ihe notification part of this program is voluntary. In order to continue to receive notificalons, It is your\nresponsibility to keep your contact Information current.\n\nSincerely,\n\nm spede\n\n3.\n\nVillatafia, the FBI, and the CEOS Trial Attorney Interview Victims\n\nAs Villafatia resumed organizing the case for charging and trial, the FBI case agent\nprovided Villafafia with a list of \"the 19 identified victims we are planning on using in\" the federal\ncharges and noted that she and her co-case agent wanted to further evaluate some additional\nvictims.33° In Washington, D.C., CEOS assigned a Trial Attorney to the Epstein case in order to\nbring expertise and \"a national perspective\" to the matter.33I\nOn January 18, 2008, one attorney representing a victim and her family contacted Sloman\nby telephone, stating that he planned to file civil litigation against Epstein on behalf of his clients,\nwho were \"frustrated with the lack of progress in the state's investigation\" of Epstein. The attorney\nasked Sloman if the USAO \"could file criminal charges even though the state was looking into the\nmatter,\" but Sloman declined to answer his questions concerning the investigation.332 In late\nJanuary, the New York Post reported that the attorney's clients had filed a $50 million civil suit\nagainst Epstein in Florida and that \"Epstein is expected to be sentenced to 18 months in prison\nwhen he pleads guilty in March to a single charge of soliciting an underage prostitute.\"333\nBetween January 31, 2008, and May 28, 2008, the FBI, with the prosecutors, interviewed\nadditional victims and reinterviewed several who had been interviewed before the NPA was\nsigned.334 In late January 2008, as Villafafia and the CEOS T\n... [truncated, 2886 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/249 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=249]", "char_count": 2886}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 250, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 251 of 348\n\nin FBI interviews of\nand other victims, Villafafia informed CEOS Chief Oosterbaan that she\nanticipated the victims \"would be concerned about the status of the case.\"\nOn JanuaryS2008, Villafaila, the CEOS Trial Attorney, and the FBI interviewed three\nvictims, including\nPrior to the interview,\nhad received the FBI's January l02008\nletter stating that the case was under investigation; however, according to the case agent,\nand\ntwo other victims had also been told bySe FBI, in October 2007, that the case had been resolved.\nIn her 2015 CVRA-case declaration,\nstated that after receiving the FBI letter, she believed\nthat the FBI was investigating the case, and she was not told \"about any [NPA] or any potential\nresolution of the federal criminal investigation I was cooperating in. If I had been told of a[n\nNPA], I would have objected.\" In Villafafia's 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia\nrecalled interviewing\non January 31, 2008, along with FBI agents, and Villafafia told OPR\nshe \"asked\nwhether she would be willing to testify if there were a trial.\" Villafafia recalled\nresponding that she \"hoped Epstein would be prosecuted and that she was willing to\ntesay.\"335\n\nM.\n\n[MI\n\nAfter the first three victim interviews on January 31, 2008, Villafafia described for Acosta\nand Sloman the toll that the case had taken on two of the victims:\nOne girl broke down sobbing so that we had to stop the interview\ntwice ... she said she was having nightmares about Epstein coming\nafter her and she started to break down again so we stopped the\ninterview.\nThe second girl. . . was very upset about the 18 month deal she had\nread about in the paper.336 She said that 18 months was nothing and\nthat she had heard that the girls could get restitution, but she would\nrather not get any money and have Epstein spend a significant time\nin jail.337\nVillafafia closed the email by requesting that Acosta and Sloman attend the int\n... [truncated, 3577 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/250 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=250]", "char_count": 3577}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 251, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 252 of 348\n\nfor him, as U.S. Attorney, to attend witness interviews, and further, that no one in the USAO \"was\nquestioning the pain or the suffering of the victims.\" Sloman told OPR that he himself had \"never\ngone to a line assistant's victim or witness interview.\"\nVillafafia told OPR that although three of the victims interviewed during this period had\nbeen notified by the FBI in October 2007 about the resolution of the case, at this point Villafafia\ndid not specifically tell these victims that \"there was a signed non-prosecution agreement that had\nthese terms.\" Villafafia also told OPR she \"didn't talk about money\" because she \"didn't want\nthere to be an allegation at the time of trial . . . that [the victims] were either exaggerating their\nclaims or completely making up claims in order to increase their damages amount.\" Rather,\naccording to Villafafia, she told the three victims that \"an agreement had been reached where\n[Epstein] was going to be entering a guilty plea, but it doesn't look like he intends to actually\nperform . . . [and] now it looks like this may have to be charged, and may have to go to trial.\"\nVillafaiia recalled \"explaining that the case was under investigation,\" that they \"were preparing\nthe case [for charging] again,\" and \"expressing our hope that charges would be brought.\" Villafaita\nrecalled one victim \"making a comment about the amount of [imprisonment] time and why was it\nso low\" and Villafafia answered, \"that was the agreement that the office had reached.\"339\nWith regard to the victims Villafafia interviewed who had not received an FBI notification\nin October 2007, Villafafia recalled discussing one victim's safety concerns but not whether they\ndiscussed the agreement. She recalled telling another victim that \"we thought we had reached an\nagreement with [Epstein] and then we didn't,\" but was \"pretty sure\" that she did not mention the\nagreement during the interview of the third \n... [truncated, 3659 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/251 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=251]", "char_count": 3659}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 252, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 253 of 348\n\nprosecutors and did not recall learning any information about Epstein's guilty plea until after the\nplea was entered on June 30, 2008.\nWhen asked whether she was concerned that her statements would mislead the victims,\nVillafafia told OPR:\nFrom my perspective we were conducting an investigation and it\nwas an investigation that was going to lead to an indictment. You\nknow, I was interviewing witnesses, I was issuing [legal\nprocess], ... I was doing all [these] things to take the case to a\nfederal indictment and a federal trial. So to me, saying to a victim\nthe case is now back under investigation is perfectly accurate.\n4.\n\nFebruary — March 2008: Villafafia Takes Additional Steps to Prepare\nfor a Prosecution of Epstein, Arranges for Pro Bono Attorneys for\nVictims, and Cautions about Continued Delay\n\nIn February 2008, Villafafia revised the prosecution memorandum and supplemental\nmemorandum. Villafalia removed some victims known to Epstein from the PBPD investigation\nand others subject to impeachment as a result of civil suits they filed against Epstein, added newly\ndiscovered victims, and made changes to the proposed indictment.\nWhile the defense appealed the USAO's decision to prosecute Epstein to higher levels of\nthe Department, Villafafia sought help for victims whom defense investigators were harassing and\nattempting to subpoena for depositions as part of Epstein's defense in civil lawsuits that some\nvictims had brought against him, as well as purportedly in connection with the state criminal case.\nVillafafia reported to her supervisors that she was able to locate a \"national crime victims service\norganization\" to provide attorneys for the victims, and the FBI Victim Specialist contacted some\nvictims to provide contact information for the attorneys?\" During this period, an attorney from\nthe victims service organization was able to help\navoid an improper deposition.\nVillafafia also informed he\n... [truncated, 2999 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/252 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=252]", "char_count": 2999}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 253, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 254 of 348\n\ncamera memory cards seized by the PBPD in order to have them forensically examined for deleted\nimages that could contain child pornography.342\nBy early April 2008, as the defense pursued its appeal to the Department's Criminal\nDivision, Acosta predicted in an email to Villafaila and Sloman that federal charges against Epstein\nwere \"more and more likely.\" Villafafta asked Oosterbaan for help to \"move this [Criminal\nDivision review] process along,\" noting that the defense continued to undermine the government's\ncase by deposing the victims \"under the guise of 'trial prep' for the state case\" and that the \"agents\nand the victims\" were \"losing their patience.\"\nOn April 24, 2008, Villafafia emailed Sloman and USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior\nasking whether she had the =\nlight\" to file charges and raising the same concerns she had\nexpressed to Oosterbaan. Villafalia further cautioned that, although she was planning to file\ncharges on May 6, if that was not going to happen, \"then we all need to meet with the victims, the\nagents, and the police officers to decide how the case will be resolved and to provide them with an\nexplanation for the delay.\" Because the Department's Criminal Division did not conclude its\nreview of Epstein's appeal by May 6, however, Villafafia did not file charges that day.\nVIII. USAO SUPERVISORS CONSIDER CVRA OBLIGATIONS IN AN UNRELATED\nMATTER AND IN LIGHT OF A NEW FIFTH CIRCUIT OPINION\nDuring the period after the NPA was signed, and before Epstein complied with the NPA\nby entering his state guilty pleas, the USAO supervisors were explicitly made aware of a conflict\nbetween the Department's position that CVRA's victims' rights attached upon the filing of a\ncriminal charge and a new federal appellate ruling to the contrary. The contemporaneous\ncommunications confirm that in 2008, Acosta and Sloman were aware of the Department's policy\nregarding the issue.\nUnrelated to the Epst\n... [truncated, 3379 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/253 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=253]", "char_count": 3379}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 254, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 255 of 348\n\nCVRA rights attach prior to the filing of criminal charges.344 The Appellate Division Chief noted\nthat, although the holding conflicted with the 2005 Guidelines, the \"court's opinion makes sense.\"\ninvolved a federal prosecution arising from a 2005 explosion at an oil refinery\noperated by BP Products North America, Inc. (BP) that killed 15 people and injured more than\n170. Before bringing criminal charges, the government negotiated a guilty plea with BP without\nnotifying the victims. The government filed a sealed motion, alerting the district court to the\npotential plea and claiming that consultation with all the victims was impractical and that such\nnotification could result in media coverage that would undermine the plea negotiations. The court\nthen entered an order prohibiting the government from notifying the victims of the pending plea\nagreement until after it had been signed by the parties. Thereafter, the government filed a criminal\ninformation, the government and BP signed the plea agreement, and the government mailed notices\nof the plea hearing to the victims informing them of their right to be heard. One month later, 12\nvictims asked the court to reject the plea because it was entered into in violation of their rights\nunder the CVRA. The district court denied their motion, but concluded that the CVRA rights to\nconfer with the prosecutor in the case and to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's\ndignity and privacy vested prior to the initiation of charges.3U The district court noted that the\nlegislative history reflected a view that \"the right to confer was intended to be broad,\" as well as\nbeing a \"mechanism(]\" to ensure that victims were treated with fairness.\nIn denying the victims relief, the Fifth Circuit nevertheless concluded that the district court\n\"failed to accord the victims the rights conferred by the CVRA.\"306 In particular, the Fifth Circuit\ncited the distri\n... [truncated, 3682 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/254 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=254]", "char_count": 3682}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 255, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nan instance in which\nthe FBI case agents.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 256 of 348\n\n\"asked a question that wasn't answered\" of anyone in the USAO or of\n\ncontacted Villafafia by email and telephone in mid-June statin that he had\n\"information and concerns that [he] would like to share.\"m8 In his affidavit,\nalleged that\nduring multiple telephone calls with Villafafia, he \"asked very specific questions about what stage\nthe investigation was in,\" and Villafafia replied that she could not answer his questions because\nthe matter \"was an on-going active investigation[.]\"\nattested that Villafafia gave him \"the\nimpression that the Federal investigation was on-going, very expansive, and continuously growing,\nboth in the number of identified victims and [in] complexity.sM9\nIn her written response to OPR, Villafafia said that she \"listened more than [she] spoke\"\nduring these interactions with\nwhich occurred before the state court plea:\nGiven the uncertainty ofthe situation — Epstein was still challenging\nour ability to prosecute him federally, pressing allegations of\nprosecutorial misconduct, and trying to negotiate better plea terms,\nwhile the agents, my supervisors, and I were all moving towards\n[filing charges] — I did not feel comfortable sharing any information\nabout the case. It is also my practice not to talk about status before\nthe grand jury.\nIn her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia explained that during these\nexchanges, Villafafia did not inform\nof the existence of the NPA because she \"did not\nknow whether the NPA remained viable at that time or whether Epstein would enter the state court\nguilty plea that would trigger the NPA.\"35° Villafafia told OPR that she did not inform\nalso had interactions with other victims' attorneys. For example, another attorney informed OPR that he spoke to\nVillafana two to five times concerning the status of the case and each time was told that the case was under\ninvestigation. The attorney\n... [truncated, 3758 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/255 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=255]", "char_count": 3758}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 256, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 257 of 348\n\nabout the NPA because it was \"confidential\" and because the case was under \"investigation and\nleading towards\" the filing of charges. Villafafia recalled mentioning the conversation to her\nsupervisors and the case agents because she \"thought he was somebody who could be of assistance\nto us and . . . could perhaps persuade Alex Acosta that this was a case that was meritorious and\nshould be prosecuted.\"\nNevertheless, when OPR asked Villafafia why she did not inform\nof the same\ninformation that the FBI and she had provided to\nin October 2007 and January 2008,\nVillafafia explained that she felt \"prohibited\":\nAt the time that I spoke with him, you know, there had been all of\nthis . .. letter writing or all of these concerns and instructions that I\nhad been given by Alex [Acosta] and Jeff [Sloman] not to disclose\nthings further and not to have any involvement in victim\nnotification, and so I felt like that prohibited me from telling him\nabout the existence of the NM.\nX.\n\nJUNE 2008: EFFORTS TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT THE JUNE 30, 2008 PLEA\nHEARING\n\nThe Epstein team's appeals through the Department ended on June 23, 2008, when the\nDeputy Attorney General determined that \"federal prosecution of this case is appropriate\" and\nEpstein's allegations ofprosecutorial misconduct did not rise to a level that would undermine such\na decision. Immediately thereafter, at Sloman's instruction, Villafafia notified Lefkowitz that\nEpstein had until \"the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the terms and\nconditions of the agreement . . . including entry of a guilty plea, sentencing, and surrendering to\nbegin his sentence of imprisonment.\" That same day, Villafafia made plans to file charges on July\nI, 2008, if Epstein did not enter his guilty plea by the June 30 deadline.\nOn Friday, June 27, 2008, Villafafia received a copy of the proposed state plea agreement\nand learned that the plea hearing was sch\n... [truncated, 3055 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/256 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=256]", "char_count": 3055}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 257, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 258 of 348\n\nVillafafia told OPR that before the state plea hearing, she sent Reiter a list of the victims,\nincluding their telephone numbers, to notify and asked him to destroy the list. Villafafia recalled\nthat Reiter told her that he would \"try to contact as many as he could\" and that he would destroy\nthe list afterwards. Villafafia did not recall being \"asked [to] provide a list ofall our victims to the\nState Attorney's Office.\"\nIn his 2009 deposition, Reiter stated that Villafafia sent him a letter \"around the time of\nsentencing,\" listing the victims in the federal investigation, and that she asked him to destroy the\nletter after he reviewed it. Reiter recalled that he requested the list because he was aware that the\nstate grand jury's indictment of Epstein did not include all of the victims that the PBPD had\nidentified and he \"wanted to make sure that some prosecution body had considered all of our\nvictims.\"353\nIn her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia stated that she and the PBPD\n\"attempted to notify the victims about [the June 30] hearing in the short time available to us.\"354\nIn her 2008 declaration, however, Villafafia conceded that \"all known victims were not notified.\"\nVillafafia told OPR that\nwas the only victim attorney she was authorized to\ncontact—she thought probably by Sloman—about the June 30, 2008 plea hearing because\n\"had ex re.Hd a specific interest in the outcome.\" Villafafia recalled, \"I was told that I could\ninform\nof [the plea date], but I still couldn't inform him of the NPA.\"355 In her 2008\ndeclaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia stated that she called\nand informed him of\nthe plea hearing scheduled for Monday; Villafafia stated that\ntold her that he could not\nattend the.\"he\nbut \"someone\" would be present. In a later filing in the CVRA litigation,\nasserted that Villafafia told him only that \"Epstein was\nhowever,\nguilty to state\nsolicitation of prostitution \n... [truncated, 3657 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/257 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=257]", "char_count": 3657}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 258, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 259 of 348\n\n[M]y expectation of what was going [to] happen at the plea was that\nit would be like a federal plea where there would be a factual proffer\nthat was read, and where the judge would ask if there were any\nvictims resent who wanted to be heard, and that at that point if Brad\nwanted to address the court or if his clients wanted to\naddress the court, they would be given the opportunity to do S0.357\nSloman told OPR that he did not recall directing Villafiuia to contact anyone about the plea\nhearing or directing her specifically not to contact anyone about it. Acosta told OPR that he\nbelieved the state would notify the victims of the \"all-encompassing plea\" resolving the federal\ncase \"and [the victims would] have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing.\"\nNevertheless, Acosta did not know whether the state victims overlapped with the federal victims\nor whether the USAO \"shared that list with them.\" Villafafia told OPR that she and Acosta\n\"understood that the state would notify the state victims\" but that neither of them were aware \"that\nthe state only believed they had one victim.\"' Villafafia told OPR that there was \"very little\"\ncommunication between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office, and although she discussed a\nfactual proffer with the State Attorney's Office and \"the fact that ... the federal investigation had\nidentified additional victims,\" she did not recall discussing \"who the specific people were that they\nconsidered victims in the state case.\"359\nSloman told OPR that the \"public perception ... that we tried to hide the fact of the results\nof this resolution from the victims\" was incorrect. He explained:\n[E]ven though we didn't have a legal obligation, I felt that the\nvictims were going to be notified and the state was going . .. to\nfulfill that obligation, and even as another failsafe, [the victims]\nwould be notified of . . . the restitution mechanism that we had set\nup on\n... [truncated, 3329 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/258 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=258]", "char_count": 3329}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 259, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 260 of 348\n\nWhen asked why the USAO did not simply notify the victims of the change of plea hearing,\nSloman responded that he \"was more focused on the restitution provisions. I didn't get the sense\nthat the victims were overly interested in showing up . . . at the change of plea.\"\nAlso, in late June, Villafafia drafted a victim notification letter concerning the June 30,\n2008 plea.36° Villafafia told OPR that, because \"Mr. Acosta had agreed in December 2007 that we\nwould not provide written notice of the state change of plea, the written victim notifications were\nprepared to be sent immediately following Epstein's guilty plea.\"36I As she did with prior draft\nvictim notification letters, Villafafia provided the draft to the defense for comments.362\nAlthough Epstein's plea hearing was set for June 30, 2008, Villafafia took steps to facilitate\nthe filing of federal charges on July I, 2008, in the event he did not plead guilty in state court.\nOPR reviewed voluminous Epstein-related files that the State Attorney's Office made\navailable online, but OPR was unable to locate any document establishing that before the hearing\ndate, the state informed victims of the June 30, 2008 plea. On March 12, 2008, the State Attorney's\nOffice issued trial subpoenas to three victims and one non-law enforcement witness commanding\nthe individuals to \"remain on call\" during the week of July 8, 2008. However, the Palm Beach\nCounty Sheriff was unable to serve one of the victims in person because the victim was \"away [at]\ncollege.\"\nXI.\n\nJUNE 30, 2008: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS GUILTY PLEAS IN A STATE COURT\nHEARING AT WHICH NO VICTIMS ARE PRESENT\n\nOn June 30, 2008, Epstein appeared in state court in West Palm Beach, with his attorney\nJack Goldberger, and pled guilty to an information charging him with procuring a person under 18\nfor prostitution, as well as the indictment charging him with felony solicitation of prostitution. The\ninformation \n... [truncated, 3673 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/259 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=259]", "char_count": 3673}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 260, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 261 of 348\n\nyes.\" The court also asked Belohlavek if the juvenile victim's parents or guardian agreed with the\nplea, and Belohlavek stated that because the victim was no longer under age 18, Belohlavek spoke\nwith the victim's counsel, who agreed with the plea agreement.363\nBoth Villafafia and the FBI case agent were present in the courtroom gallery to observe the\nplea hearing. Later that day, Villafafia met with Goldberger and gave him the list of 31 individuals\nthe government was prepared to name as victims and to whom the § 2255 provision applied.\nIn her 2015 CVRA case declaration,\nstated that, \"I did not have any reason to attend\nme\nthat\nthis\nguilty\nplea was related to the FBI's investigation\nthat hearing because no one had told\nof Epstein's abuse of me.\" She stated that she \"would have attended and tried to object to the\njudge and prevent that plea from going forward,\" had she known that the state plea \"had some\nconnection to blocking the prosecution of my case.\" Similarly, CVRA petitioner Jane Doe #2\nstated that \"no one notified me that [Epstein's] plea had anything to do with my case against him.\"\nAn attorney who represented several victims, including one whom the state had\nsubpoenaed for the potential July trial, told OPR that he was present in court on June 30, 2008, in\norder to serve a complaint upon Epstein in connection with a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of\none of his clients. The USAO had not informed him about the plea hearing.360 Moreover, the\nattorney informed OPR that, although one of the victims he represented had been interviewed in\nthe PBPD's investigation and had been deposed by Epstein's attorneys in the state case (with the\nAssistant State Attorney present), he did not recall receiving any notice of the June 30, 2008 plea\nhearing from the State Attorney's Office.3\" Similarly, another of the victims the state had\nsubpoenaed for the July trial told OPR through her attorney that she \n... [truncated, 3559 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/260 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=260]", "char_count": 3559}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 261, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 262 of 348\n\ncivil suits that were pending against Epstein.3\" Villafalia also emailed one of the pro bono\nattorneys she had engaged to help victims avoid defense harassment, informinghim that the federal\ninvestigation had been resolved through a state plea and that Epstein had an \"agreement\" with the\nUSAO \"requir[ing] him to make certain concessions regarding possible civil suits brought by the\nvictims.\" Villafafia advised Goldberger: \"The FBI has received several calls regarding the [NPA].\nI do not know whether the title of the document was disclosed when the [NPA] was filed under\nseal, but the FBI and our Office are declining comment if asked.\"\nB.\n\nJuly 7, 2008: The CVRA Litigation Is Initiated\n\nOn July 3, 2008, victims' attorney\nspoke to Villafafia by telephone about the\nresolution of the state case against Epstein \"and the next stage of the federal prosecution.\"367 In\nhis 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation,\nasserted that during this conversation,\nVillafafia did not inform him of the NPA,but that during the call, he sensed that the USAO \"was\nbeginning to negotiate with Epstein concerning the federally identified crimes.\" However, in an\nemail Villafafia sent after the call, she informed Sloman that during the call,\nstated that\n\"his clients can name many more victims and wanted to know if we can get out of the deal.\"\nVillafafia told Sloman that after she told\nI that the government was bound by the\nasked that \"if there is the slightest bit of\nagreement, assuming Epstein completed it,\nhesitation on Epstein's part of completing his performance, that he and his [three] clients be\nallowed to consult with [the USAO] before making a decision.\"36s\nThat same day,\nwrote a letter to Villafafia, complaining that Epstein's state court\nsentence was \"grossly inadequate for a predator of this magnitude\" and urged Villafatla to \"move\nforward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate wi\n... [truncated, 3140 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/261 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=261]", "char_count": 3140}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 262, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 263 of 348\n\nno federal charges filed against Epstein as a result of the government's agreement in mid-2007 to\ndefer prosecution to the state.370\nC.\n\nJuly 2008: Villafaila Prepares and Sends a Victim Notification Letter to Listed\nVictims\n\nOn July 8, 2008, Villafafia provided Goldberger with an updated victim list for 18 U.S.C.\n§ 2255 purposes, noting that she had inadvertently left off one individual in her June 30, 2008\nletter. Villafaiia also informed the defense that, beginning the following day, she would distribute\nnotifications to each of the 32 victims and their counsel informing them that Epstein's attorney\nwould be the contact for any civil litigation, if the victim decided to pursue damages. Finally, the\nletter informed the defense that the government would consider a denial by Epstein that any \"one\nof these victims is entitled to proceed under 18 U.S.C. § 2255\" to be considered a breach of the\nterms of the NPA.\nAfter exchanging emails and letters with the defense concerning the content of the notice\nletter, Villafafia drafted a letter she sent, on July 9 and 10, to nine victims who had previously\nretained counsel. The letter informed the victims and their counsel that, \"[i]n light of Epstein's\nJune 30, 2008 state court plea to felony solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors to\nengage in prostitution, and his sentence of a total of 18 months' imprisonment followed by 12\nmonths' community control, \"the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of\nthis state plea and sentence, subject to certain conditions.\" The letter included a reference to the\n18 U.S.C. § 2255 provision of the NPA, and although the defense had neversto\nit, used\nlanguage from Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Epstein defense attorney\nclarifying\nthe damages provision. The paragraph below was described as \"[o]ne such condition to which\nEpstein has agreed\nAny person, who while a minor, was a vict\n... [truncated, 3291 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/262 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=262]", "char_count": 3291}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 263, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 264 of 348\n\n18 U.S.C. § 2255 and again listing the 32 \"individuals whom the United States was prepared to\nname as victims of an enumerated offense.\" 371 The same day, Villafafia sent Goldberger a second\nletter, noting that the defense would receive copies of all victim notifications on a rolling basis.\nVillafatia informed her managers that the FBI case agents would reach out by telephone to\nthe listed victims who were unrepresented, to inform them that the case was resolved and to\nconfirm their addresses for notification by mail. With regard to the content of the telephone calls,\nVillafafia proposed the following language to the case agents:\nWe are calling to inform you about the resolution of the Epstein\ninvestigation and to thank you for your help.\nMr. Epstein pled guilty to one child sex offense that will require him\nto register as a sex offender for life and received a sentence of 18\nmonths imprisonment followed by one year of home confinement.\nMr. Epstein also made a concession regarding the payment of\nrestitution.\nAll of these terms are set out in a letter that AUSA Villafafia is going\nto send out. Do you have a lawyer? Get name or address. If not[,]\nwhere do you want [the] letter sent? If you have questions when\nyou receive the letter, please understand that we cannot provide\nlegal advice but the lawyers at the following victim rights\norganizations are able to help you at no cost to you. (Provide names\nand phone numbers)\nAlso ask about counseling and let them know that counseling is still\navailable even though the investigation is closed.\nOn July 21, 2008, Villafafia sent the letter to the 11 unrepresented victims whose addresses\nthe FBI had by that time confirmed. Villafafia provided Epstein's defense counsel with a copy of\nthe letter sent to each victim, directly or though counsel (with the mailing addresses redacted).\nD.\n\nJuly — August 2008: The FBI Sends the Victim Notification Letter to Victims\n... [truncated, 3107 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/263 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=263]", "char_count": 3107}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 264, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 265 of 348\n\nletter was substantially identical to the previous FBI victim notification letter the FBI had sent to\nvictims (in 2006, 2007, and 2008) in that it identified each recipient as \"a possible victim of a\nfederal crime\" and listed her eight CVRA rights.\nThe letter did not indicate that Epstein had pled guilty in state court on June 30, 2008, or\nthat the USAO had resolved its investigation by deferring federal prosecution in favor of the state\nplea. Rather, like the previous FBI VNS-generated letter, the letter requested the victims'\n\"assistance and cooperation while we are investigating the case.\"\nFor each of the two victims residing outside of the United States, Villafafia also drafted a\nnotification letter concerning the June 30, 2008 plea and the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 process, which were\nto be hand delivered along with the FBI's letters. However, FBI records do not reflect whether\nthe USAO's letter was delivered to the two victims.\nE.\n\nAugust — September 2008: The Federal Court Orders the USAO to Disclose\nthe NPA to Victims, and the USAO Sends a Revised Victim Notification Letter\n\nOn August 1, 2008, the petitioners in the CVRA litigation filed a motion seeking access to\nthe NPA. The USAO opposed the motion by relying on the confidentiality portion of the NPA.372\nOn August 21, 2008, the court ordered the government to provide the petitioners with a copy of\nthe NPA subject to a protective order. In addition, the court ordered the government to produce\nthe NPA to other identified victims upon request:\n(d) If any individuals who have been identified by the USAO as\nvictims of Epstein and/or any attorney(s) for those individuals\nrequest the opportunity to review the [NM], then the USAO shall\nproduce the [NPA] to those individuals, so long as those individuals\nalso agree that they shall not disclose the [NPA] or its terms to any\nthird party absent further court order, following notice to and an\nopportunity f\n... [truncated, 3094 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/264 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=264]", "char_count": 3094}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 265, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 266 of 348\n\nobligated to amend her prior letter to victims to correct the reference to the December letter.376\nAccordingly, the September letter contained no information about the parties' intent in\nimplementing 18 U.S.C. § 2255, but merely referred to the NPA language concerning Epstein's\nwaiver of his right to contest liability under the provision. In addition, the September letter\ndescribed the appointment of a special\n, the special\nselection of an attorney to\nrepresent the victims in their 18 U.S.C. § 2255 litigation against Epstein, and Epstein's agreement\nto pay the attorney representative's fees arising out of such litigation. The letter also clarified that\nEpstein's agreement to pay for attorneys' fees did not extend to contested litigation against him.\nThe government also intended for the letter to comply with the court's order concerning\nproviding victims with copies of the NPA. The initial draft included a paragraph advising the\nvictims that they could receive a copy of the NPA:\nIn addition, a judge has ordered that the United States make\navailable to any designated victim (and/or her attorney) a copy of\nthe actual agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States, so\nlong as the victim (and/or her attorney) reviews, signs, and agrees to\nbe bound by a Protective Order entered by the Court. If [the victim]\nwould like to review the Agreement, please let me know, and I will\nforward a copy of the Protective Order for her signature.\nThe government shared draft versions of the September letter with Epstein's counsel and\nresponded to criticism of the content of the proposed letter. For example, in response to the above\nlanguage regarding the August 21, 2008 court order in the CVRA litigation, the defense argued\nthat there was \"no court order requiring the government to provide the alleged `victims' with notice\nthat the [NPA] is available to them upon request and doing so is in conflict with the confi\n... [truncated, 3049 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/265 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=265]", "char_count": 3049}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 266, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nF.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 267 of 348\n\n2010 — 2011:\nDepartment and Congressional Actions Regarding\nInterpretation of the CVRA\n\nIn connection with the Department's 2010 effort to update its 2005 Guidelines, the Office\nof the Deputy Attorney General convened a Victim of Crimes Working Group that asked OW to\nrevisit its 2005 preliminary review concerning the definition of \"crime victim\" under the CVRA\nand solicited input concerning the issue from Department components and federal law enforcement\nagencies. In response, OLC issued a December 17, 2010 opinion entitled, The Availability of\nCrime Victims' Rights Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004. Based on the CVRA's\nlanguage, relevant case law, and memoranda opinions from Department components, OLC\nreaffirmed its 2005 conclusion that CVRA rights do not vest until a criminal charge has been filed\n(by complaint, information, or indictment) and the rights cease to be available if \"all charges are\ndismissed either voluntarily or on the merits (or if the [g]ovemment declines to bring formal\ncharges after the filing of a complaint).\"378\nAfter OLC issued its opinion, the Department revised the 2005 Guidelines in October 2011\nbut did not change its fundamental position that the CVRA rights did not vest until after criminal\ncharges were filed. The 2011 revision did, however, add language concerning victim consultation\nbefore a defendant is charged: \"In circumstances where plea negotiations occur before a case has\nbeen brought, Department policy is that this should include reasonable consultation prior to the\nfiling of a charging instrument with the court.\"3\" The use of the word \"should\" in the 2011\nGuidelines indicates that \"personnel are expected to take the action . . . unless there is an\nappropriate, articulable reason not to do so.\"38° Nevertheless, the required consultation \"may be\ngeneral in nature\" and \"does not have to be specific to a particular plea offer.\"381 The revisions\na\n... [truncated, 3601 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/266 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=266]", "char_count": 3601}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 267, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 268 of 348\n\nDepartment had made its \"best efforts in thousands of federal and District of Columbia cases to\nassert, support, and defend crime victims' rights.\" The response also referenced OLC's December\n2010 opinion concluding that CVRA rights apply when criminal proceedings are initiated, noting\nthat \"the new AG Guidelines go further and provide that Department prosecutors should make\nreasonable efforts to notify identified victims of, and consider victims' views about, prospective\nplea negotiations, even prior to the filing of a charging instrument with the court.\"383\nIn 2015, Congress amended the CVRA, and added the following two rights:\n(9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain\nor deferred prosecution agreement.\n(10) The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the\nservices described in section 503(c) of the Victims' Rights and\nRestitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10607(c)) and provided contact\ninformation for the Office of the Victims' Rights Ombudsman ofthe\nDepartment of Justice.\nG.\n\nThe CVRA Litigation Proceedings and Current Status\n\nWhile the CVRA litigation was pending in the Southern District of Florida, numerous\nfederal civil suits against Epstein, brought in the same district, were transferred to the same judge\nas \"related cases,\" as a matter of judicial economy pursuant to the Local Rules. As the parties\nagreed on settlements in those civil cases, they were dismissed.384 Several of the victims who had\nsettled their civil cases filed a pleading in the CVRA litigation asking the court to \"maintain their\nanonymity\" and not \"further disseminate[]\" their identities to the CVRA petitioners.385\nIn the CVRA case, the petitioners claimed that the government violated their CVRA rights\nto confer by (1) negotiating and signing the NPA without victim input; (2) sending letters to the\nvictims claiming that the matter was \"under investigation\" after the NPA was alrea\n... [truncated, 3205 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/267 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=267]", "char_count": 3205}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 268, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 269 of 348\n\nletters to victims sent after the NPA was signed were not misleading in stating that the matter was\n\"under investigation\" because the government continued to investigate given its uncertainty that\nEpstein would plead guilty; and (3) Villafaiia contacted the petitioners' attorney prior to Epstein's\nstate plea to advise him of the hearing. Nonetheless, Villafafia told OPR that, while there were\nvalid reasons for the government's position that CVRA rights do not apply pre-charge, \"[T]his is\na case where I felt we should have done more than what was legally required. I was obviously\nprepared to spend as much time, energy and effort necessary to meet with each and every [victim].\"\nOver the course of the litigation, the district court made various rulings interpreting the\nprovisions of the CVRA, including the court's key conclusion that victim CVRA rights \"attach\nbefore the Government brings formal charges against a defendant.\" The court also held that\n(I) \"the CVRA authorizes the rescission or 'reopening' of a prosecutorial agreement, including a\nnon-prosecution agreement, reached in violation of a prosecutor's conferral obligations under the\nstatute\"; (2) the CVRA authorizes the setting aside of pre-charge prosecutorial agreements\";\n(3) the CVRA's \"reasonable right to confer\" \"extends to the pre-charge state of criminal\ninvestigations and proceedings\"; (4) the alleged federal sex crimes committed by Epstein render\nthe Doe petitioners \"victims\" under the CVRA; and (5) \"questions pertaining to [the] equitable\ndefense[s] are properly left for resolution after development of a full evidentiary record.\"\nOn February 21, 2019, the district court granted the petitioners' Motion for Partial\nSummary Judgment, ruling that \"once the Government failed to advise the victims about its\nintention to enter into the NPA, a violation of the CVRA occurred.\" The government did not\ndispute the fact that it did not confer\n... [truncated, 3813 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/268 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=268]", "char_count": 3813}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 269, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 270 of 348\n\nthe 2005 Guidelines was inconsistent with positions the USAO had taken in correspondence with\nEpstein's attorneys, in which the government acknowledged that \"it had obligations to notify the\nvictims.\" The court ordered the parties to submit additional briefs regarding the appropriate\nremedies. Accordingly, the petitioners requested multiple specific remedies, including rescission\nof the NPA; a written apology to all victims from the government; a meeting with Acosta,\nVillafaila, and her supervisors; access to government records, including grand jury materials;\ntraining for USA'S, employees; and monetary sanctions and attorneys' fees.387\nFollowing Epstein's indictment on federal charges in New York and subsequent death\nwhile in custody, on September 16, 2019, the district judge presiding over the CVRA case denied\nthe petitioners' motion for remedies and closed the case, stating that Epstein's death \"rendered the\nmost significant issue that was pending before the Court, namely, whether the Government's\nviolation of Petitioners' rights under the CVRA invalidated the NPA, moot.\"3g8 The court did not\norder the government to take corrective measures, but stated that it \"fully expects the Government\nwill honor its representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the\nproper treatment of crime victims.\"389 The court also denied the petitioners' request for attorneys'\nfees, finding that the government did not act in bad faith, because, \"[a]lthough unsuccessful on the\nmerits of the issue of whether there was a violation of the CVRA, the Government asserted\nlegitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation.\"\nappealed the district court's rejection of the requested\nOn September 30, 2019,\nremedies, through a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the\nEleventh Circuit.390 In its responsive brief, the government expressed s\n... [truncated, 3940 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/269 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=269]", "char_count": 3940}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 270, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 271 of 348\n\nvictims deserve to be treated with fairness and respect, and to be conferred with on the criminal\ncase, not just because the CVRA requires it, but because it's the right thing to do.\" Duriigoral\nargument on January 16, 2020, the government apologized for the USAO's treatment of =\nThe issue is whether or not the office was fully transparent with\nabout what it is that was going on with respect to the NPA,\nand they made a mistake in causing her to believe that the case was\nongoing when in fact the NPA had been signed. The government\nshould have communicated in a straightforward and transparent way\nwith\nand for that, we are genuinely sorry.393\nOn April 14, 2020, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied\npetition for a writ of mandamus, concluding that \"the CVRA does not apply before the\ncommencement of criminal proceedings—and thus, on the facts of this case, does not provide the\npetitioner here with any judicially enforceable rights.\"394 The court conducted a thorough analysis\nof the language of the statute, the legislative history, and previous court decisions. The court\ndistinguished In re\nas \"dictum\" consisting of a \"three-sentence discussion ... devoid of any\nanalysis of the CVRA's text, history, or structural underpinnings.\" The court noted that its\ninterpretation of the CVRA was consistent with the Department's 2010 OLC opinion concerning\nvictim standing under the CVRA and the Department's efforts in \"implementing regulations.\"\nFinally, the court raised separation of powers concerns with\n(and the dissenting judge's)\ninterpretation of victim standing under the CVRA, noting that such an interpretation would\ninterfere with prosecutorial discretion.\nNevertheless, the court was highly critical of the government's conduct in the underlying\ncase, stating that the government \"[s]eemingly . . . defer[red] to Epstein's lawyers\" regarding\ninformation it provided victims ab\n... [truncated, 3074 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/270 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=270]", "char_count": 3074}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 271, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 272 of 348\n\n[Page Intentionally Left Blank]\n\n246\n\nEFTA02831047\n\n", "char_count": 125}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 272, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 273 of 348\n\nCHAPTER THREE\nPART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS\nI.\n\nSTATUTORY PROVISIONS\n\nPertinent sections of the CVRA and the VRRA, applicable during the relevant time period,\nare set forth below.\nA.\n\nThe CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771\n\n(a) Rights of Crime Victims. —A crime victim has the following rights:\n(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.\n(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any\nparole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.\n(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after\nreceiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be\nmaterially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.\n(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving\nrelease, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.\n(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.\n(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.\n(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.\n(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.\n\n(c) Best Efforts To Accord Rights.—\n(1) Government.—Officers and employees of the Department of Justice . . . shall make their\nbest efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in\nsubsection (a).\n\n(e) Definitions.\n\n(2) Crime victim.—\n(A) In general. —The term \"crime victim\" means a person directly and proximately\nharmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of\nColumbia.\n247\n\nEFTA02831048\n\n", "char_count": 1786}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 273, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nB.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 274 of 348\n\nThe Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (VRRA), 34 U.S.C. § 20141,\nServices to Victims (formerly cited as 42 USCA § 10607)\n\n(b) Identification of victims\nAt the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime at which it may be done without\ninterfering with an investigation, a responsible official shall—\n(1) identify the victim or victims of a crime;\n(2) inform the victims of their right to receive, on request, the services described in subsection\n(c); and\n(3) inform each victim of the name, title, and business address and telephone number of the\nresponsible official to whom the victim should address a request for each of the services\ndescribed in subsection (c).\n(c) Description of services\n(1) A responsible official shall—\n(A) inform a victim of the place where the victim may receive emergency medical and\nsocial services;\n(B) inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled\nunder this or any other law and manner in which such relief may be obtained;\n(C) inform a victim ofpublic and private programs that are available to provide counseling,\ntreatment, and other support to the victim; and\n(D) assist a victim in contacting the persons who are responsible for providing the services\nand relief described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C).\n(2) A responsible official shall arrange for a victim to receive reasonable protection from a\nsuspected offender and persons acting in concert with or at the behest ofthe suspected offender.\n(3) During the investigation and prosecution of a crime, a responsible official shall provide a\nvictim the earliest possible notice of—\n(A) the status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is appropriate to inform the\nvictim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation;\n(B) the arrest of a suspected offender,\n(C) the filing of charges against a suspected offender;\n(D) the scheduling of e\n... [truncated, 2443 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/273 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=273]", "char_count": 2443}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 274, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 275 of 348\n\n(4) During court proceedings, a responsible official shall ensure that a victim is provided a\nwaiting area removed from and out of the sight and hearing of the defendant and defense\nwitnesses.\n\n(e) Definitions\n\n(2) the term \"victim\" means a person that has suffered direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary\nharm as a result of the commission of a crime . . . .\nII.\n\nDEPARTMENT POLICY: THE 2005 ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR\nVICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE (2005 GUIDELINES)\n\nIn 2005, the Department revised its guidelines for victim and witness assistance in order to\nincorporate the provisions of the CVRA. The purpose of the 2005 Guidelines was \"to establish\nguidelines to be followed by officers and employees of Department of Justice investigative,\nprosecutorial, and correctional components in the treatment of victims of and witnesses to crime.\"\nThe relevant portions of the 2005 Guidelines are as follows:\nArticle IV: Services to Victims and Witnesses\nA. Investigation Stage\nThe investigative agency's responsibilities begin with the report of the crime and extend\nthrough the prosecution of the case. In some instances, when explicitly stated, the\ninvestigative agency's responsibility for a certain task is transferred to the prosecuting\nagency when charges are filed.\n\n2. Identification of Victims. At the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime at\nwhich it may be done without interfering with an investigation, the responsible official of\nthe investigative agency shall identify the victims of the crime.\n3. Description of Services.\na. Information, Notice, and Referral\n(1) Initial Information and Notice. Responsible officials must advise a victim\npursuant to this section at the earliest opportunity after detection of a crime at which\nit may be done without interfering with an investigation. To comply with this\nrequirement, it is recommended that victims be given a printed brochure or card\nthat br\n... [truncated, 2097 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/274 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=274]", "char_count": 2097}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 275, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 276 of 348\n\nservice providers, and lists the names and telephone numbers of the victim-witness\ncoordinator or specialist and other key officials. A victim must be informed of—\n(a) His or her rights as enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a).\n(b) His or her right entitlement, on request, to the services listed in 42 U.S.C.\n§ 10607(c).\n(c) The name, title, business address, and telephone number of the responsible\nofficial to whom such a request for services should be addressed.\n(d) The place where the victim may receive emergency medical or social\nservices.\n(e) The availability of any restitution or other relief (including crime victim\ncompensation programs) to which the victim may be entitled under this or any\nother applicable law and the manner in which such relief may be obtained.\n(0 Public and private programs that are available to provide counseling,\ntreatment, and other support to the victim.\n\n(i) The availability of services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault,\nor stalking.\n(j) The option of being included in VNS.\n(k) Available protections from intimidation and harassment.\n\n(3) Notice during the investigation. During the investigation of a crime, a\nresponsible official shall provide the victim with the earliest possible notice\nconcerning—\n(a) The status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent that it is\nappropriate and will not interfere with the investigation.\n(b) The arrest of a suspected offender.\n\nB. Prosecution Stage\nThe prosecution stage begins when charges are filed and continues through postsentencing\nlegal proceedings, including appeals and collateral attacks.\n250\n\nEFTA02831051\n\n", "char_count": 1697}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 276, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 277 of 348\n\nI. Responsible Officials. For cases in which charges have been instituted, the responsible\nofficial is the U.S. Attorney in whose district the prosecution is pending.\n2. Services to Crime Victims\n\nb. Information, Notice, and Referrals\n(1) Notice of Rights. Officers and employees of the Department of Justice shall\nmake their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of the rights enumerated\nin 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a).\n(2) Notice of Right To Seek Counsel. The prosecutor shall advise the crime victim\nthat the crime victim can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights\ndescribed in 18 U.S.C. § 377I(a).\n(3) Notice of Right To Attend Trial. The responsible official should inform the\ncrime victim about the victim's right to attend the trial regardless of whether the\nvictim intends to make a statement or present any information about the effect of\nthe crime on the victim during sentencing.\n(4) Notice of Case Events. During the prosecution of a crime, a responsible official\nshall provide the victim, using VNS (where appropriate), with reasonable notice\nof—\n(a) The filing of charges against a suspected offender.\n(b) The release or escape of an offender or suspected offender.\n(c) The schedule of court proceedings.\n(i) The responsible official shall provide the victim with reasonable,\naccurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding or parole\nproceeding that involves the crime against the victim. In the event of an\nemergency or other last-minute hearing or change in the time or date of a\nhearing, the responsible official should consider providing notice by\ntelephone or expedited means. This notification requirement relates to\npostsentencing proceedings as well.\n(ii) The responsible official shall also give reasonable notice of the\nscheduling or rescheduling of any other court proceeding that the victim or\nwitness is required or entitled to attend.\n(d) The acceptance of a plea\n... [truncated, 2092 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/276 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=276]", "char_count": 2092}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 277, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 278 of 348\n\n(e) If the offender is convicted, the sentence and conditions of supervised\nrelease, if any, that are imposed.\n\n(6) Referrals. Once charges are filed, the responsible official shall assist the victim\nin contacting the persons or offices responsible for providing the services and relief\n[previously identified].\nc. Consultation With a Government Attorney\n(1) In General. A victim has the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the\nGovernment in the case. The victim's right to confer, however, shall not be\nconstrued to impair prosecutorial discretion. Federal prosecutors should be\navailable to consult with victims about major case decisions, such as dismissals,\nrelease of the accused pending judicial proceedings (when such release is for\nnoninvestigative purposes), plea negotiations, and pretrial diversion. Because\nvictims are not clients, may become adverse to the Government, and may disclose\nwhatever they have learned from consulting with prosecutors, such consultations\nmay be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only\nnonsensitive data and public information. Consultations should comply with the\nprosecutor's obligations under applicable rules of professional conduct.\nRepresentatives of the Department should take care to inform victims that neither\nthe Department's advocacy for victims nor any other effort that the Department\nmay make on their behalf constitutes or creates an attorney-client relationship\nbetween such victims and the lawyers for the Government.\nDepartment personnel should not provide legal advice to victims.\n(2) Prosecutor Availability. Prosecutors should be reasonably available to consult\nwith victims regarding significant adversities they may suffer as a result of delays\nin the prosecution of the case and should, at the appropriate time, inform the court\nof the reasonable concerns that have been conveyed to the prosecutor.\n(3) Proposed Plea Agreeme\n... [truncated, 2600 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/277 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=277]", "char_count": 2600}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 278, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 279 of 348\n\n(d) Whether the proposed plea involves confidential information or conditions.\n(e) Whether there is another need for confidentiality.\n(0 Whether the victim is a possible witness in the case and the effect that\nrelaying any information may have on the defendant's right to a fair trial.\nIII.\n\nFLORIDA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT\nA.\n\nFRPC 4-4.1 — Candor in Dealing with Others\n\nFRPC 4-4.1 prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact\nor law to a third person during the course of representation of a client. A comment to this rule\nexplains that \"[m]isrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or\nomissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements,\" and \"[w]hether a particular\nstatement should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances.\"\nB.\n\nFRPC 4-8.4 — Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice\n\nFRPC 4-8.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,\ndeceit, or misrepresentation.\nFRPC 4-8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct in connection with the practice\nof law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.\nAs previously noted, courts have determined that FRPC 4-8.4(d) is not limited to conduct\nthat occurs in a judicial proceeding, but can be applied to \"conduct in connection with the practice\nof law.\" Frederick, 756 So. 2d at 87; see also Shankman, 41 So. 3d at 172.\n\n253\n\nEFTA02831054\n\n", "char_count": 1536}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 279, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 280 of 348\n\n[Page Left Intentionally Blank]\n\n254\n\nEFTA02831055\n\n", "char_count": 125}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 280, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 281 of 348\n\nCHAPTER THREE\nPART THREE: ANALYSIS\nI.\n\nOVERVIEW\n\nIn addition to criticism of Acosta's decision to end the federal investigation by means of\nthe NPA, public and media attention also focused on the government's treatment of victims. In\nthe CVRA litigation and in more recent media reports, victims complained that they were not\ninformed about the government's intention to end its investigation of Epstein because the\ngovernment did not consult with victims before the NPA was signed; did not inform them of\nEpstein's state plea hearing and sentencing, thereby denying them the opportunity to attend; and\nactively misled them through statements that the federal investigation was ongoing. The district\ncourt overseeing the CVRA litigation concluded that the government violated the Crime Victims'\nRights Act and \"misl[ed] the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility\" and\nthat \"[i]t was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have\npatience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute.\"395\nThe government's conduct, which involved both FBI and USAO actions, led to allegations that\nthe prosecutors had purposefully failed to inform victims of the NPA to prevent victims from\ncomplaining publicly or in state court.\nOPR examined the government's course of conduct when interacting with the victims,\nincluding the lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed; Acosta's decision\nto defer to state authorities the decision to notify victims of Epstein's state plea; and the decision\nto delay informing victims about the NPA until after Epstein entered his plea on June 30, 2008.\nOPR considered whether letters sent to victims by the FBI after the NPA was signed contained\nfalse or misleading statements. OPR also evaluated representations Villafafia made to victims in\nJanuary and February 2008, and to an atto\n... [truncated, 3023 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/280 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=280]", "char_count": 3023}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 281, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 282 of 348\n\nAs discussed below, OPR concludes that none of the subject attorneys violated a clear and\nunambiguous duty under the CVRA because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation without\na federal criminal charge. In September 2007, when the NPA was signed, the Department did not\ninterpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the federal\ncourts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before criminal\ncharges were brought. Pursuant to OPR's established analytical framework, OPR does not find\nprofessional misconduct unless a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and\nunambiguous standard. Accordingly, OPR finds that the subject attorneys' conduct did not rise to\nthe level of professional misconduct. OPR nevertheless concludes that the lack of consultation\nwas part of a series of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court\ncondemnation of the government's treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as\na whole, and is contradictory to the Department's mission to \"minimize the frustration and\nconfusion that victims of a crime endure in its wake.\"396\nA.\n\nAt the Time, No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Required the USAO to\nNotify Victims Regarding Case-Related Events until after the Filing of\nCriminal Charges\n\nAlthough the rights enumerated in the CVRA are clear on their face, the threshold issue of\nwhether an individual qualifies as a victim to whom CVRA rights attach was neither clear nor\nunambiguous at the time the USAO entered into the NPA with Epstein in September 2007. At that\ntime, the Department interpreted the CVRA in a way that differed markedly from the district\ncourt's later interpretation in the CVRA litigation.\nThe CVRA defines a \"crime victim\" as \"a person directly and proximately harmed as a\nresult of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in\n... [truncated, 3560 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/281 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=281]", "char_count": 3560}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 282, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 283 of 348\n\nand consider victims' views about, prospective plea negotiations.398 The \"prosecution stage\"\nbegan when charges were filed and continued through all post-sentencing legal proceedings.399\nAt the time the parties signed the NPA in September 2007, few courts had addressed victim\nstanding under the CVRA. Notably, district courts in New York and South Carolina had ruled that\nstanding attached only upon the filing of federal charges.400 Two cases relied upon by the court\nin its February 2019 opinion—M and its underlying district court opinion, BP Products—were\ndecided after the NPA was signed.\nThe CVRA litigation and proposed federal legislation—both pending as of the date of this\nReport—show that the interpretation of victim standing under the CVRA continues to be a matter\nof debate.401 In a November 21, 2019 letter to Attorney General William Barr, a Congressional\nRepresentative stated that she had recently introduced legislation specifically to \"[c]larify that\nvictims of federal crimes have the right to confer with the Government and be informed about key\npm-charging developments in a case, such as . . . non-prosecution agreements.\"402 The CVRA\nlitigation arising from the Epstein case shows the lack of clarity regarding when CVRA rights\napply: the district court concluded that CVRA rights applied pre-charge, but a sharply divided\npanel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals came to a contrary conclusion, a decision that has\nnow been vacated while the entire court hears the case en bane.\nBecause the Supreme Court had not addressed the issue of when CVRA rights apply, the\nlower courts had reached divergent conclusions, and the Department had concluded that CVRA\nrights did not apply pre-charge, OPR concludes that the subjects' failure to consult with victims\nbefore signing the NPA did not constitute professional misconduct because at that time, the CVRA\ndid not clearly and unambiguously require pro\n... [truncated, 3891 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/282 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=282]", "char_count": 3891}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 283, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 284 of 348\n\nIn M, the Eleventh Circuit panel compared the language of the CVRA to the language\nof the VRRA, noting that the VRRA \"clearly extends victim-notice rights into the pre-charge\nphase\" and opining that the government \"may well have violated\" the VRRA with regards to its\ninvestigation of Epstein. As a predecessor to the CVRA, the VRRA afforded victims various rights\nand services; however, it provided no mechanism for a victim to assert such rights in federal court\nor by administrative complaint. Like the CVRA, the rights portion of the VRRA established the\nvictims' right to be treated with fairness and respect and the right to confer with an attorney for\nthe government. However, the rights portion of the VRRA was repealed upon passage of the\nCVRA and was not in effect at the time of the Epstein investigation.\nThe portion of the VRRA directing federal law enforcement agencies to provide certain\nvictim services such as counseling and medical care referrals remained in effect following passage\nof the CVRA. Furthermore, two of the VRRA requirements—one requiring a responsible official\nto \"inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled,\" and\nanother requiring that a responsible official \"shall provide a victim the earliest possible notice of\nthe status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is appropriate to inform the victim and\nto the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation\"—may have applied to the Epstein\ninvestigation. However, the VRRA did not create a clear and unambiguous obligation on the part\nof the subject attorneys, as the 2005 Guidelines assigned the duty of enforcing the two\nrequirements to the investigative agency rather than to prosecutors. Moreover, the VRRA did not\nrequire notice to victims before the NPA was signed because, at that point, the case remained\n\"under investigation,\" and the victims did not become entitle\n... [truncated, 4007 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/283 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=283]", "char_count": 4007}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 284, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 285 of 348\n\ndid not find evidence showing that the subjects intended to silence victims or to prevent them from\nhaving input into the USAO's intent to resolve the federal investigation.\nAlthough the contemporaneous records provide some information about victim notification\ndecisions made after the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, the records contain little about\nthe subjects' views regarding consultation with victims before the NPA was signed. In a\nSeptember 6, 2007 email primarily addressing other topics, as the plea negotiations were beginning\nin earnest and almost three weeks before the NPA was signed, Villafafia raised the topic of victim\nconsultation with Sloman: \"The agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their\napproval, which as [CEOS Chief Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law....\n[A]nd the [PBPD] Chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal.\"404\nSloman forwarded the email to Acosta with a note stating, \"fyi.\" Villafafia recalled that after she\nsent the email, Sloman told her by telephone, \"[Y]ou can't do that now.s405 Villafafia also told\nOPR that shortly before the NPA was signed, Sloman told her, \"[W]e've been advised that ... precharge resolutions do not require victim notification.\" Villafafia also recalled a discussion with\nAcosta, Menchel, and Sloman, during which she stated that she would need to get victims' input\non the terms being proposed to the defense, and she was told, \"Plea negotiations are confidential.\nYou can't disclose them.\"406\nNone of the other subjects recalled a specific discussion before the NPA was signed about\nthe USAO's CVRA obligations. Menchel told OPR he believed the USAO was not required to\nconsult with victims during the preliminary \"general discussion\" phase of settlement negotiations;\nmoreover, he left the USAO before the terms of the NPA were fully developed.\nSloman told OPR that he \"did not thi\n... [truncated, 3815 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/284 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=284]", "char_count": 3815}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 285, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 286 of 348\n\nAcosta told OPR that them was no requirement to notify the victims because the NPA was\n\"not a plea, it's deferring in favor of a state prosecution.\" Acosta said, \"[W]hether or not victims'\nviews were elicited is something I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I\nwas focused on at least at this time.\" Acosta could not recall any particular concern that factored\ninto the decision not to consult with the victims before entering into the NPA, but he acknowledged\nto OPR, \"[C]learly, given the way it's played out, it may have been much better if we had\n[consulted with the victims].\"407\nAs indicated, the contemporaneous records reflect little about decisions made regarding\nvictim consultation prior to when the NPA was signed. Villafatia raised the issue in writing to her\nsupervisors in early September, but there is no evidence showing whether her supervisors\naffirmatively rejected Villafalia's contention that the USAO was obligated to consult with victims,\nignored the suggestion, or failed to address it for other reasons, possibly because of the extended\nuncertainty as to whether Epstein would ever agree to the government's plea proposal. OPR notes\nthat its subject interviews were conducted more than a decade after the NPA was signed, and the\npassage of time affected the recall of each individual OPR interviewed. Although Villafafia\nrecalled discussions with her supervisors about notifying victims, her supervisors did not, and\nMenchel contended that Villafafia's recollection is inaccurate. Assuming the discussions occurred,\nthe timing is unclear. Sloman was on vacation before the NPA was signed, so a call with Villafafia\nabout victim notification at that point in time appears unlikely. Any discussion involving Menchel\nnecessarily occurred before August 3, 2007, when it was unclear whether the defense would agree\nto the government's offer. Supervisors could well have decided tha\n... [truncated, 3939 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/285 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=285]", "char_count": 3939}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 286, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 287 of 348\n\nrequire victim approval of the prosecutors' plans, but it allows victims the opportunity to express\ntheir views and to be heard before a final decision is made. The lack of consultation in this case\ndenied the victims that opportunity.408\nIII.\n\nLETTERS SENT TO VICTIMS BY THE FBI WERE NOT FALSE STATEMENTS\nBUT RISKED MISLEADING VICTIMS ABOUT THE STATUS OF 'f HE\nFEDERAL INVESTIGATION\n\nAfter the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, Villafana and the FBI separately\ncommunicated with numerous victims and victims' attorneys, both in person and through letters.\nApart from three victims who likely were informed in October or November 2007 about a\nresolution ending the federal investigation, victims were not informed about the NPA or even more\ngenerally that the USAO had agreed to end its federal criminal investigation of Epstein if he pled\nguilty to state charges until after Epstein entered his guilty plea in June 2008. Despite the\ngovernment's agreement on September 24, 2007, to end its federal investigation upon Epstein's\ncompliance with the terms of the NPA, the FBI sent to victims in October 2007, January 2008, and\nMay 2008, letters stating that the case was \"currently under investigation.\" In its February 21,\n2019 opinion in the CVRA case, the district court found those letters \"misl[ed] the victims to\nbelieve that federal prosecution was still a possibility\" and that \"tilt was a material omission for\nthe Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about\nwhich it had already bound itself not to prosecute.s409\nIn the discussions throughout this section, OPR examines the government's course of\nconduct with victims after the NPA was signed. As set forth in the previous subsection, OPR did\nnot find evidence supporting a finding that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafafta acted with the intent to\nsilence victims. Nonetheless, after examining the full scope and conte\n... [truncated, 3849 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/286 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=286]", "char_count": 3849}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 287, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 288 of 348\n\nbreach, however, Epstein would enter his state guilty plea and the federal investigation would end.\nThus, the statement that the case was \"currently under investigation\" was literally true, but the\nomission of important contextual information about the existence of the NPA deprived the victims\nof important information about the exact status of the investigation.\nA.\n\nThe USAO Was Not Responsible for Victim Notification Letters Sent by the\nFBI in October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008 Describing the Status of\nthe Case as \"Under Investigation\"\n\nThe 2005 Guidelines charged the FBI with informing the victims of CVRA rights and\navailable services during the \"investigative stage\" of a case. During the Epstein investigation, the\nFBI case agents complied with the agency's notification obligation by hand delivering pamphlets\nto victims following their interviews and through computer-generated letters sent to the victims by\nthe FBI's Victim Specialist. The FBI's notification process is independent of the USAO's. The\nUSAO has its own Victim Witness Specialist who assumes the responsibility for victim\nnotification after an indictment or complaint moved the case into the \"prosecution stage.\"\nThe FBI's Victim Specialist used the VNS to prepare the October 2007, January 2008, and\nMay 2008 letters, a system the FBI regularly employs to comply with its obligations under the\n2005 Guidelines to inform the victims of their rights and other services during the \"investigative\nstage.\" The\nlanguage of that letter, however, was generic and failed to communicate the\nunique case-specific status of the Epstein investigation at that time. The FBI Victim Specialist\nwho sent the letters acted at the case agent's direction and was not aware of the existence of the\nNPA at the time she created the letters.410 Neither FBI case agent reviewed any of the letters sent\nby the FBI's Victim Specialist.011 According to Villafafia, \"Th\n... [truncated, 4010 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/287 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=287]", "char_count": 4010}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 288, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nB.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 289 of 348\n\nBecause the Federal Investigation Continued after the NPA Was Signed, the\nFBI Letters Were Accurate but Risked Misleading Victims regarding the\nStatus of the Federal Investigation\n\nAs described previously, given Epstein's appeal to the Department and continued delay\nentering his guilty plea, Villafafia and other subjects came to believe that Epstein did not intend to\ncomply with the NPA and that the USAO would ultimately file charges against Epstein. By April\n2008, Acosta predicted in an email that charging Epstein was \"more and more likely.\" As a result,\nVillafafia and the case agents continued their efforts to prepare for a likely trial with additional\ninvestigative steps. Among other actions, Villafafia, her supervisors, CEOS, and the case agents\nengaged in the following investigative activities:\n•\n\nThe FBI interviewed victims in October and November 2007 and between January and\nMay 2008, and discovered at least six new victims.\n\n•\n\nIn January 2008, CEOS assigned a Trial Attorney to bring expertise and \"a national\nperspective\" to the matter.\n\n•\n\nIn January and February 2008, Villafafia and the CEOS Trial Attorney participated in\nvictim interviews.\n\n•\n\nVillafafta revised the prosecution memorandum to focus \"on victims who are unknown to\nEpstein's counsel.\"\n\n•\n\nThe USAO informed the Department's Civil Rights Division \"pursuant to USAM\n(§) 8-3.120,\" of the USAO's \"ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter\"\ninvolving Epstein and others.\n\n•\n\nVillafafia secured pro bono legal representation for victims whose depositions were being\nsought by Epstein's attorneys in connection with the Florida criminal case.413\n\n•\n\nVillafafia prepared a revised draft indictment.\n\n•\n\nVillafafia sought and obtained approval to provide immunity to a potential government\nwitness in exchange for that witness's testimony.\n\n•\n\nEven after Epstein's state plea hearing was set for June 30, 2008, Villafafia took \n... [truncated, 2706 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/288 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=288]", "char_count": 2706}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 289, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 290 of 348\n\ncontinuing.\" The co-case agent also told OPR that, as of the time of his OPR interview in 2019,\nthe \"the case was open . . . it's never been shut down.\"\nOPR found no evidence that the FBI's victim letters were drafted with the intent to mislead\nthe victims about the status of the federal investigation. The \"ongoing investigation\" language\ngenerated by the VNS was generic template language in use nationwide at the time and identical\nto that contained in standard form notification letters the FBI generated and distributed from\nAugust 2006 through the 2007 signing of the NPA.414 Nevertheless, the FBI's letters omitted\nimportant information about the status of the case because they failed to notify the victims that a\nfederal prosecution would go forward only if Epstein failed to fulfill his obligations under an\nagreement he had reached with the USAO. Victims receiving the FBI's letter would logically\nconclude that the federal government was continuing to gather evidence to support a federal\nstated during the CVRA litigation that her \"understanding of\nprosecution. CVRA petitioner\nthis letter was that [her] case was still being investigated and the FBI and prosecutors were moving\nforward on the Federal prosecution of Epstein for his crimes against\" her. Furthermore, when the\nfact that the USAO had agreed to end its federal investigation in September 2007 eventually came\nto light, the statement in the subsequent letters contributed to victims' and the public's conclusions\nthat the government had purposefully kept victims in the dark.\nIn sum, OPR concludes that the statement in the FBI victim letters that the matter was\n\"currently under investigation\" was not false because the USAO and the FBI did continue to\ninvestigate and prepare for a prosecution of Epstein. The letters, however, risked misleading the\nvictims, and contributed to victim frustration and confusion, because the letters did not provide\n\n... [truncated, 3580 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/289 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=289]", "char_count": 3580}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 290, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nIV.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 291 of 348\n\nACOSTA'S DECISION TO DEFER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S\nDISCRETION WHETHER TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT EPSTEIN'S STATE\nCOURT PLEA HEARING DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR OR UNAMBIGUOUS\nSTANDARD; HOWEVER, ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY\nFAILING TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS IDENTIFIED IN THE FEDERAL\nINVESTIGATION WERE ADVISED OF THE STATE PLEA HEARING\n\nAs set forth in the factual discussion, within a few weeks of the NPA's signing, it became\nclear that the defense team disagreed with, and strongly objected to, the government's plan to\ninform victims of their ability to recover monetary damages from Epstein, under the 18 U.S.C.\n§ 2255 provision of the NPA, and about Epstein's state court plea hearing. The USAO initially\ntook the position that it was obligated to, and intended to, inform victims of both the NPA,\nincluding the § 2255 provision, and Epstein's change of plea hearing and sentencing, so that\nvictims who wanted to attend could do so.\nIn November and December 2007, Epstein's attorneys challenged the USAO's position\nregarding victim notification. Ultimately, Acosta made two distinct decisions concerning victim\nnotifications. Consistent with Acosta's concerns about intruding into state actions, Acosta elected\nto defer to state authorities the decision whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing\npursuant to the state's own victim's rights requirements. Acosta also determined that the USAO\nwould notify victims about their eligibility to obtain monetary damages from Epstein under § 2255,\na decision that was implemented by letters sent to victims after Epstein entered his state pleas.\nThis decision, which postponed notification of the NPA until after Epstein entered his guilty pleas,\nwas based, at least in part, on Villafafia's and the case agents' strategic concerns relating to\npreserving the victims' credibility and is discussed further in Section V, below.\nIn this section, OPR analyzes Acosta's\n... [truncated, 3598 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/290 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=290]", "char_count": 3598}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 291, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 292 of 348\n\nstrongly objected to the government's plan to notify victims of the state proceedings, which he\ndescribed as \"highly inappropriate\" and an \"intrusion into state affairs, when the identified\nindividuals are not even victims of the crime for which Mr. Epstein is being sentenced.\"\nThereafter—at a time when the USAO believed Epstein's plea to be imminent—Villafafia\ndrafted, and Sloman signed, the December 6, 2007 letter to Lefkowitz rejecting the defense\narguments regarding notification and reiterating the USAO's position that the victims identified in\nthe federal investigation be invited to appear at the state plea hearing. The letter took an expansive\nview of the applicable statutes by contending that both the CVRA and the VRRA required the\nUSAO to notify the victims of the state proceedings:\n[T]hese sections are not limited to proceedings in a federal district\ncourt. Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal\ninvestigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense.\nThe victims identified through the federal investigation should be\nappropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does\nnot require the U.S. Attorney's Office to forego [sic] its legal\nobligations.416\nThe letter also asserted that the VRRA obligated the USAO to provide the victims with\ninformation concerning restitution to which they may be entitled and \"the earliest possible\" notice\nof the status of the investigation, the filing of charges, and the acceptance of a plea. Along with\nthe letter, Sloman forwarded a revised draft victim notification letter to Lefkowitz for his\ncomments. This draft victim notification letter stated that the federal investigation had been\ncompleted, Epstein would plead guilty in state court, the parties would recommend 18 months of\nimprisonment at sentencing, and Epstein would compensate victims for monetary damages claims\nbrought under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The draft victim notifica\n... [truncated, 3402 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/291 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=291]", "char_count": 3402}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 292, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 293 of 348\n\nThereafter, in his December 19, 2007 letter to defense counsel mainly addressing other\nmatters, Acosta informed the defense that the USAO would defer to the State Attorney's discretion\nthe responsibility for notifying victims about Epstein's state plea hearing:\nI understand that the defense objects to the victims being given\nnotice of [the] time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court [plea and]\nsentencing hearing.\nI have reviewed the proposed victim\nnotification letter and the statute. I would note that the United States\nprovided the draft letter to the defense as a courtesy. In addition,\nFirst Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated\nin the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel.\nI agree that Section 3771 applies to notice of proceedings and results\nof investigations of federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We\nintend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as\nrequired by law. We will defer to the discretion ofthe State Attorney\nregarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the\nstate proceedings, although we will provide him with the\ninformation necessary to do so if he wishes.\n(Emphasis added.)\nAcosta told OPR that he \"would not have sent this [letter] without running it by [Sloman],\nif not other individuals in the office.\" Acosta explained that it was \"not for me to direct the State\nAttorney, or for our office to direct the State Attorney's Office on its obligations with respect to\nthe state outcome.\" Acosta acknowledged that the USAO initially had concerns about the state's\nhandling of the case, but he told OPR, \"that doesn't mean that they will not fulfill whatever\nobligation they have. Let's not assume. . . that the State Attorney's office is full of bad actors.\"\nSloman initially believed that \"the victims were going to be notified at some level, especially\nbecause they had restitution rights under [§] 2\n... [truncated, 3591 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/292 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=292]", "char_count": 3591}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 293, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 294 of 348\n\nparticular charges and victims at issue. Once the hearing was scheduled, Sloman told Villafafia to\ncontact PBPD Chief Reiter about notifying the victims, and on June 28, 2008, she reported back\nto Sloman that Reiter \"is going to notify victims about the plea.\"°18 Villafafia recalled that she\nsent Reiter a list of the girls identified as victims during the federal investigation, and Reiter said\nhe would \"contact as many as he could.\" The contemporaneous records do not show how many\nor which victims, if any, Reiter contacted, and no victims were present in the courtroom. No victim\nwho provided information to OPR, either in person or through her attorney, recalled receiving\nnotice of the plea hearing from federal or state officials. At the time Epstein pled guilty in state\ncourt, no one in the USAO knew exactly who, if anyone, Reiter or the State Attorney's Office had\nnotified about the proceeding. Accordingly, Villafafia, who was present in the courtroom for the\nhearing, had no knowledge to whom Belohlavek referred when she told the court that the victims\nwere \"in agreement with the terms of this plea.\"419\nOPR considered whether Acosta's decision to defer to the State Attorney's Office the\ndecision to notify victims of the scheduled date for Epstein's plea hearing constituted professional\nmisconduct. OPR could not conclude that the CVRA or VRRA provisions in question, requiring\nnotice of any public proceeding involving the crime against the victim or that the victim is entitled\nto attend, unambiguously required federal prosecutors to notify victims of state court proceedings.\nFurthermore, as discussed previously, OLC had issued guidance stating that the CVRA did not\napply to cases in which no federal charges had been filed.020 Moreover, the section of the VRRA\nrequiring notice of court proceedings that the victim is \"entitled to attend\" referred specifically to\nproceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 10606\n... [truncated, 4004 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/293 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=293]", "char_count": 4004}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 294, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nB.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 295 of 348\n\nAcosta Exercised Poor Judgment When He Failed to Ensure That Victims\nIdentified in the Federal Investigation Were Informed of the State Plea\nHearing\n\nAlthough Acosta (or the USAO) was not required by law or policy to notify victims of the\nstate's plea hearing, he also was not prohibited by law or policy from notifying the victims that\nthe federal investigation had been resolved through an agreement that included pleas to state\ncharges. As the contemporary records indicate, Acosta consistently expressed hesitancy to\ninterfere in the state's processes or to \"dictate\" actions to the State Attorney. His decision that the\nUSAO refrain from notifying victims about the state plea hearing and defer to the State Attorney's\njudgment regarding whether and whom to notify was consistent with this view. However, OPR\nfound no evidence that Acosta's decision to defer victim notification \"to the discretion of the State\nAttorney\" was ever actually communicated to any state authorities or that Acosta recognized that\nthe state, absent significant coordination with federal authorities, was unlikely to contact all of the\nvictims identified in the state and federal investigations or that the state would inform the victims\nthat it did notify that the state plea hearing was part of an agreement that resolved the federal\ninvestigation into their own cases.423\nEven taking into account Acosta's views on principles of federalism and his reluctance to\ninterfere in state processes, Acosta should have recognized the problems that would likely stem\nfrom passing the task of notifying victims to the State Attorney's Office and made appropriate\nefforts to ensure that those problems were minimized. Appropriate notification would have\nincluded advising victims identified in the federal investigation that the USAO had declined to\nbring charges and that the matter was being handled by the State Attorney, and, at a minimum,\nprovid\n... [truncated, 4086 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/294 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=294]", "char_count": 4086}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 295, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 296 of 348\n\nthe PBPD during its investigation into Epstein's conduct. Absent information from the USAO,\nthe state would not have been in a position to notify those additional victims of the state plea\nproceeding, even if the State Attorney had decided to include other victims identified during the\nstate investigation. Furthermore, at the time he made his decision, Acosta had already been advised\nby Villafafia that Belohlavek, in November 2007, had requested that the USAO notify victims,\npresumably those identified during the federal investigation, about the state plea hearing.\nAcosta told OPR that it had been his understanding at the time of Epstein's plea that the\nvictims would be made aware of the proceeding and would have an opportunity to speak. Acosta\nalso told OPR that he expected the state would have \"notified [the victims] that that was an allencompassing plea, that the state court sentence would also mean that the federal government was\nnot proceeding.\" There is no evidence, however, that he verified this understanding with Sloman\nor Villafafia, let alone the State Attorney. OPR found no indication that Acosta ever\ncommunicated, or directed Sloman or Villafafia to communicate, his decision to the State Attorney\nor to provide the State Attorney's Office with a complete list of victims identified during the\nfederal investigation. OPR located a draft letter to the State Attorney's Office that Villafafia\nprepared and forwarded to Acosta in December 2007, which did provide such information, but\nOPR found no evidence that the letter was ever sent, and it was not among materials publicly\nreleased from the State Attorney's Office.424 OPR also found evidence that both Sloman and\nVillafafia interacted with the State Attorney's Office in the months leading up to the June 30, 2008\nplea hearing, but there is no indication that they discussed victim notification issues with that\noffice, and Villafaila's last mi\n... [truncated, 4090 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/295 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=295]", "char_count": 4090}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 296, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 297 of 348\n\ninvestigation. Because the state indictment and information appeared to pertain to far fewer than\nthe total victims identified in either the state or the federal investigation, and no one at the USAO\nwas certain which victims were covered by the state charges, it should have been apparent to\nAcosta that without advance planning between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office, there\nwas a substantial risk that most of the victims identified in the federal investigation would not\nreceive notice of the hearing.425 Notification to the broadest possible number of identified victims\ncould only have been successful if there was appropriate communication between the USAO and\nthe state prosecutors, communication that had previously been lacking regarding other significant\nissues relating to Epstein. Villafatia and Sloman's hastily arranged effort to enlist in the\nnotification process PBPD Chief Reiter, who likely played little role in complying with the state's\nvictim notification obligations in a typical case, was not an adequate substitute for careful planning\nand coordination with the State Attorney's Office.426\nEven if the State Attorney's Office had notified all of the identified victims of the upcoming\nplea hearing, there was no guarantee that such notification would have included information that\nthe state plea was resolving not just the state's investigation of Epstein, but the federal investigation\nas well. The State Attorney was not obligated by state statutes to inform the victims of the status\nof the federal investigation, and there was little reason to assume Krischer, or one of his staff,\nwould voluntarily do so, thereby putting the State Attorney's Office in the position of fielding\nvictim questions and concerns about the outcome. Furthermore, as both the USAO and the defense\nhad differing views as to who could lawfully participate in the state plea hearing, there is no\nindication that A\n... [truncated, 4461 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/296 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=296]", "char_count": 4461}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 297, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 298 of 348\n\nargued that Acosta should have been able to rely on his staff to accomplish the victim notification\ntask, and thus had no responsibility to personally confirm that Chief Reiter would notify the\nvictims of the hearing.428 Acosta is correct that under usual circumstances, USAO management\nplayed no role in the victim notification process; however, in this case, the issue of victim\nnotification had been elevated from a rote administrative task to a major area of dispute with the\ndefense. Acosta personally involved himself by resolving the notification dispute with defense\ncounsel in his December 19, 2007 letter. Villafafia provided Acosta with a draft letter to state\nofficials that would have opened a dialogue concerning the notification ofall the victims identified\nin the federal investigation. OPR found no evidence, however, that Acosta sent the letter or any\nsimilar communication to the State Attorney's Office or that he provided Villafafia and Sloman\nwith instructions concerning victim notification other than those contained in his December 19,\n2007 letter. Having inserted himself into the notification process, Acosta had a responsibility to\nensure that his expectation that the victims would be notified could be accomplished through the\nstate process.\nMany victims only learned of Epstein's state court pleas when they later received a letter\nfrom the USAO informing them that those pleas had resolved the federal investigation, and some\nvictims only learned of the state court pleas and sentencing from the news media. In the end,\nalthough Villafafia and Sloman hastily attempted to ensure victim notification through Chief\nReiter, their effort was too little and too late to ensure that victims had the opportunity to attend\nthe plea hearing or were given sufficient information about its significance to their own cases.°29\nAlthough Acosta may have conferred with others about the decision to defer the r\n... [truncated, 4654 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/297 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=297]", "char_count": 4654}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 298, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 299 of 348\n\nresolution of the case to ensure Epstein's victims were given an opportunity to attend the plea\nhearing, and to possibly speak about the impact of Epstein's crimes, presented a glaring contrast\nwith Acosta's responsiveness to the demands of Epstein's attorneys, which included the unusual\ncourtesy of allowing them to preview and respond to the USAO's draft victim notifications. This\ncontrast added to the victims' perception that they had been treated unfairly, a view shared by the\npublic.\nNothing in the documentary record suggests that Acosta thought through the issue of\ndetermining which victims would be notified by the state, or that he took any steps to ensure that\nall of the known federal victims received information about the state plea hearing. Instead, as with\nhis decision to resolve the federal investigation through a state-based resolution, Acosta exercised\npoor judgment when he made critical decisions affecting the federal investigation and the victims,\nbut also failed to consider the full consequences of those decisions or what was needed to\nimplement them. Acosta's failure to consider these issues before simply leaving the responsibility\nfor making notifications entirely to the State Attorney's discretion reflected poorly on the USAO\nand the Department as a whole. It left victims in the dark about an important proceeding that\nresolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had communicated with\nvictims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the Department intentionally\nsought to silence the victims by keeping them uninformed about the NPA and the resulting state\nproceeding. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were afforded an opportunity to attend a hearing\nthat was related to their own cases and thus failed to ensure that victims were treated with\nforthrightness and dignity.\nV.\n\nVILLAFARA DID NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN HER\n... [truncated, 3756 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/298 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=298]", "char_count": 3756}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 299, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 300 of 348\n\nagent and Villafafia consulted with the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer about the\nmatter, and thereafter stopped notifying the victims about the NPA and their ability to pursue\nmonetary damages according to its terms.\nVillafafia advised Sloman by email of her concerns regarding the potential impeachment\nevidence, telling him, \"One thing I am concerned about is that, if we [file charges] now, crossexamination will consist of- 'and the government told you that if Mr. Epstein is convicted, you are\nentitled to a large amount of damages right?\"' Explaining the decision in her later CVRA\ndeclaration, Villafafia said that after Epstein's attorneys \"complained that the victims were\nreceiving an incentive to overstate their involvement with Mr. Epstein in order to increase their\ndamages claims,\" she \"concluded that informing additional victims could compromise the\nwitnesses' credibility at trial if Epstein reneged on the agreement.\" Acosta was aware of these\nconcerns as he referred to them in an August 2008 email, \"[W]e also believed that contacting the\nvictims would compromise them as potential witnesses. Epstein argued very forcefully that they\nwere doing this for the money, and we did not want to discuss liability with them, which was [a]\nkey part of [the] agree[ment].\"\nThe case agents interviewed victims in October and November 2007, but did not inform\nthem about the NPA.43' On January 31, 2008, the FBI agents, Villafafia, and the CEOS Trial\nand they interviewed at least one\nAttorney interviewed three victims including\nmore victim the next day.432\nand two others had been contacted by the FBI in the fall of\n2007 and may have been informed about the resolution of the federal investigation.\nVillafafia told OPR that during the January 31, 2008 interviews, she did not specifically\ntell the victims that \"there was a signed non-prosecution agreement that had these terms.\" She\nstated that she wou\n... [truncated, 3842 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/299 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=299]", "char_count": 3842}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 300, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 301 of 348\n\nthe federal investigation I was cooperating in. If I had been told of a[n NPA], I would have\nfurther stated in her declaration that, \"Based on what the FBI had been telling me,\nobjected.\"\nI thought they were still investigating my case.\"\nNeither the CEOS Trial Attorney nor the FBI case agent recalled the specifics of the victim\ninterviews. The FBI reports memorializing each interview primarily addressed the facts elicited\nfrom the victim regarding Epstein's abuse and did not describe any discussion about the status of\nthe case or the victim's view about the prosecution of Epstein.033\nWhen asked whether she was concerned that failing to tell victims about the NPA when\nshe was interviewing them would mislead victims, as previously noted, Villafaiia told OPR that\nshe believed she and the agents were conducting an investigation because they continued\n\"interviewing witnesses\" and \"doing all these things\" to file charges and prepare for a federal trial.\nAs Villafafia stated, \"So to me, saying to a victim the case is now back under investigation is\nperfectly accurate.\"\nVillafaiia was also aware that some victims were represented by counsel in connection with\ncivil lawsuits against Epstein, but did not proactively inform the victims' attorrSout the NPA.\nIn a 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, victims' attorney\nalleged that\nduring telephone calls with Villafafia, he \"asked very specific questions about what stage the\ninvestigation was in,\" and Villafalia replied that she could not answer his questions because the\nmatter \"was an on-going active investigation.\"\nstated that Villafafia gave him \"the\nimpression that the Federal investigation was on-going, very expansive and continuously growing,\nboth in the number of identified victims and complexity.\"\nalso stated, \"A fair\ncharacterization of each call was that I provided information and asked questions and Villafafia\nlistened and expressed that sh\n... [truncated, 3524 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/300 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=300]", "char_count": 3524}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 301, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 302 of 348\n\nnot plead guilty in October 2007 as the USAO expected, it was a \"very open question\" whether\nthe case would go to trial, and Acosta thought that \"where there is no legal requirement[,] [t]here\nhas to be discretion to judge how much you can tell the victims and when.\"\nEpstein's attorneys' conduct during the period between the signing of the NPA and\nEpstein's entry of his state guilty pleas illustrated the risk that Acosta, Sloman, and Villafafia all\nidentified. As Epstein's counsel deposed victims related to the state court criminal charges and\ncivil cases against Epstein, counsel suggested that the victims were motivated to testify against\nEpstein by the government's promises of financial gain. For example, during a February 20, 2008\nstate deposition of a victim, defense counsel asked her whether the federal prosecutors or FBI\nagents told her that she was entitled to receive money from Epstein.035 In her 2017 declaration in\nthe CVRA litigation, Villafafia identified that line of questioning as a motivating factor in the\ngovernment's decision to stop notifying the victims about the potential for 18 U.S.C. § 2255\nrecovery.\nOn June 27, 2008, the Friciaefore Epstein's Monday, June 30, 2008 state court guilty\nplea hearing, Villafafia contacted\nto inform him about that upcoming hearing. Villafafia\ntold OPR she \"was not given authorization to contact\" any victim's attorney other than\nabout the scheduled state plea hearing.\" In his 2017 affidavit prepared for the CVRA litigation,\nstated that Villafafia \"gave the impression that she was caught off-guard herself that\nEpstein was pleading guilty or that this event was happening at all.\"\nsaid in a 2016 court filing that Villafafia told him only that \"Epstein was pleading\nguilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges involving other victims—not Mr. Edward's\nclients nor any of the federal/\nvictims.\" Villafafia stated in her 2017 declaration that\nshe \"\n... [truncated, 4281 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/301 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=301]", "char_count": 4281}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 302, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 303 of 348\n\nattend the hearing. In his affidavit,\nasserted, \"[T]here was no possible way I could have\nbelieved that this state plea could affect the federal investigation or the rights ofmy clients in that\nfederal investigation.\"\nIn M, the Eleventh Circuit panel stated that the government \"seemingly\" deferred to\nEpstein's attorneys' requests not to notify the victims about the NPA, and that in sending the\nJanuary and May 2008 FBI letters, the government's efforts \"seem to have graduated from passive\nnondisclosure to (or at least close to) active misrepresentation.\"437 Although both the appellate\ncourt and district court focused on the FBI's letters for which OPR concludes that neither Villafafia,\nSloman, nor Acosta was responsible, OPR considered the courts' analyses in evaluating whether\nsimilar representations Villafafia made to the victims whom she interviewed on January 31 and\n, were misleading. Therefore, OPR considered whether\nFebruary I, 2008, and to\nVillafafia's statements that the matter was \"under investigation\" and her failure to inform all of the\nvictims whom she interviewed or\nabout the NPA violated FRPC 4-4.1(a), 4-8.4(c), or\n4-8.4(d).\nFRPC 44.1(a) prohibits an attorney from \"knowingly mak[ing] a false statement of\nmaterial fact or law to a third person\" during the representation of a client. The FRPC defines\n\"knowingly\" as \"denot[ing] actual knowledge of the fact in question\" and states that such\nknowledge may be \"inferred from circumstances.\"438 The comment to FRPC 4-4.1 states that\n\"[m]isrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that\nare the equivalent of affirmative false statements.\" The comment references FRPC 4-8.4 \"[f]or\ndishonest conduct that does not amount to a false statement.\" Like FRPC 44.1(a), Rule 4-8.4(c)\nrequires evidence that the attorney knew the statement in question was false. Under FRPC\n4-8.4(c), the intent requirement can b\n... [truncated, 3606 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/302 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=302]", "char_count": 3606}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 303, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 304 of 348\n\npreviously noted, there is some contemporaneous evidence supporting her assertion. Villafafia's\nmention of the agreement, even if not described in specific terms, would have been sufficient to\napprise those victims of the status of the federal investigation.\nNevertheless, Villafafia did not recall discussing the NPA specifically or in general terms\nwith other victims interviewed at that time, nor did she do so with\nor any other victim's\nattorney. OPR therefore considered whether the omission of information about the existence of\nthe NPA during these interactions. to the level ofprofessional misconduct in violation ofFRPC\n4-4.1 or 4-8.4.041\nOPR evaluated Villafafia's conduct in light of the comment to FRPC 44.1:\nA lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a\nclient's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an\nopposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if\nthe lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that\nthe lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by\npartially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the\nequivalent of affirmative false statements.\nThe victims and their attorneys were certainly not \"opposing part[ies]\" to the USAO, but the\ncomment indicates that the rule recognizes that omissions made during discussions with third\nparties, even of relevant facts, are not always treated as false statements.\nHere, the evidence does not show that Villafafia knowingly made an affirmative false\nstatement to the victims or\nor that her omissions were \"the equivalent ofaffirmative false\nstatements\" about material facts. First, Villafafia told OPR that she believed the investigation was\nongoing and her statement to that effect truthful, and as discussed earlier in this Chapter, the\nevidence shows that Villafa0a and the agents did continue to investigate the case until Epstein\nentered his guilty plea in \n... [truncated, 3516 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/303 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=303]", "char_count": 3516}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 304, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 305 of 348\n\nand they often cannot fully reveal either the facts or the status of an investigation, even with\nvictims. The 2005 Guidelines advise that in consulting with a victim, prosecutors may be limited\nin their disclosures: \"Because victims are not clients, may become adverse to the Government,\nand may disclose whatever they have learned from consulting with prosecutors, such consultations\nmay be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only nonsensitive data and\npublic information.\"\"3\nVillafafia's concern about generating potential impeachment evidence by informing\nvictims of their potential to recover monetary damages from Epstein was not unreasonable.\nIndeed, the case agents initially raised the impeachment issue, and after considering the problem,\nVillafafia agreed with the agents' concerns. Villafafia raised those concerns with the USAO's\nProfessional Responsibility Officer in October 2007 after the agents brought the issue to her\nattention, and she ultimately raised the issue with Sloman and Acosta as well, neither of whom\nadvised her that those concerns were improper or unsound. OPR also considered that although\nVillafafia had sought to notify the victims in writing of the NPA soon after it was si ed, her\nof the\nsupervisor, the U.S. Attorney, had decided otherwise. When authorized to inform\nscheduled change of plea hearing, she did so. Although she did not inform\nthat the plea\nwas part of a global resolution that would end the federal investigation, the evidence does not show\nor preventing him from attending the\nthat Villafafia acted for the purpose of deceiving\nhearing. Had she sought to exclude him from the state proceedings, she could have elected not to\ninform ME. at all, or she could have discouraged him from attending the state proceedings.\nRather, as\nconfirmed, Villafaila told him the hearing was \"important.\" Villafafia sought\nto strike a difficult balance of securing\n(\n... [truncated, 4081 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/304 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=304]", "char_count": 4081}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 305, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 306 of 348\n\nintentionally concealing information from them and was part of a series of interactions with\nvictims that led to condemnation of the government's treatment of victims.445\nVI.\n\nTHE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO TREAT VICTIMS FORTHRIGHTLY AND\nWITH SENSITIVITY WHEN IT FAILED TO TIMELY PROVIDE VICTIMS\nWITH IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOLUTION OF THE\nFEDERAL INVESTIGATION\n\nAlthough OPR does not conclude that any of the subjects committed professional\nmisconduct, either by failing to consult with the victims before the NPA was signed or in\ninteractions afterwards, OPR's findings are not an endorsement of the government's course of\naction. The government's interactions with victims confused and frustrated many of the victims,\nparticularly the two CVRA petitioners and the two victims who had unsuccessfully attempted to\njoin in the CVRA litigation. As a result, the victims' and the public's perception of the matter is\nthat the prosecutors worked with Epstein's attorneys to disenfranchise and silence the victims. It\nis unfortunate, and appears fundamentally unfair to the victims, that Acosta and Sloman (after\nMenchel and Lourie departed) took the unusual step of deciding to vet the USAO victim\nnotification letters with the defense after the NPA was signed, but failed to go beyond the\nrequirements of the CVRA or the 2005 Guidelines to consult with the victims before the NPA was\nsigned. This result is contrary to the Department's intent, as set forth in the 2005 Guidelines, that\nDepartment employees work to \"minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of crime\nendure in its wake.\" When considering the entirety of the government's interactions with victims,\nOPR concludes that victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by\nthe Department.\ncriticisms of the government's conduct were based on interactions that are similar\nto and generally representative of the government's in\n... [truncated, 3932 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/305 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=305]", "char_count": 3932}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 306, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 307 of 348\n\nVillafafia informed\nabout the state plea, but did not mention the NPA or the fact that the\nthen filed the CVRA petition and\nstate pleas would resolve the federal investigation.\nlearned about the NPA signed months earlier and that the federal investigation of Epstein had\nconcluded with Epstein's state guilty pleas.\nonly received access to the NPA when a judge\npermitted it in August 2008 pursuant to a protective order. After considering this series of\ninteractions, it is not surprising that\ncame away from the experience feeling confused and\nbelieving she had been misled.\nOPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Villafafia, Acosta, Sloman,\nMenchel, or Lourie opted not to consult with the victims in order to protect Epstein or shield the\nNPA from public scrutiny. Although neither Sloman nor Acosta could recall a specific discussion\nof CVRA obligations before the NPA was signed, both recalled knowing that victim consultation\nwas not required, and Menchel also told OPR that consultation was not required, at least not up to\nthe point when he left the USAO. The evidence is clear that Villafalla sought at various points to\nconsult with and to notify victims about the details of the NPA but was constrained before the\nNPA was signed by managers who either made a decision to not consult victims or did not address\nthe issue after it was raised, and after the signing by her own concern about creating possible\nimpeachment evidence that would damage the victims' credibility at a possible trial.\nNonetheless, a more open and straightforward approach with the victims, both before and\nafter the signing of the NPA, would have been the better practice. Before the NPA was signed,\nvictims could have been asked for their views about the general terms the USAO was\ncontemplating offering, including that a plea to state charges was one of the options being\nconsidered; asked for their views in general about a\n... [truncated, 4173 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/306 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=306]", "char_count": 4173}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 307, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 308 of 348\n\nto be paid to the FBI's communications to ensure that the victims were receiving accurate and\ntimely information that was consistent with the status of the case and with the USAO's\ncommunications with victims.407\nThe decision not to inform victims and their attorneys about the existence of the NPA gave\nvictims and the public the misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel\nto keep the agreement secret from the victims. Moreover, the lack of openness about the NPA\ngave the impression that the USAO lacked sensitivity for the victims in resolving the matter and\nundercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting plea agreement. The overall result of\nthe subjects' anomalous handling of this case left at least some of the victims feeling ignored and\nfrustrated, failed to promote their healing process, and resulted in extensive public criticism.\nAlthough OPR credits Villafafia's statements that she wanted to go beyond her obligations in\ndealing with victims, the end result nonetheless was that communications with victims were not\nprioritized by the USAO. In part this was due to the fact that interactions with victims are generally\nhandled by staff in the USAO and the FBI who are trained and have expertise in dealing with\nvictims and other witnesses. However, decisions made by Acosta, Sloman, and Villafafia also\ncontributed to the problems. The government, as it ultimately acknowledged in the CVRA\nlitigation, could have, and should have, engaged with the victims in a more transparent and unified\nfashion.\nOPR recognizes that the Epstein investigation occurred soon after the passage of the\nCVRA. In the years since, the Department's prosecutors and personnel have become more familiar\nwith its provisions. OPR encourages the Department as a whole to take the issues discussed above\ninto account when providing training and direction to its employees regarding victims' right\n... [truncated, 3894 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/307 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=307]", "char_count": 3894}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 308, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 309 of 348\n\nCONCLUSION\nIn November 2018, the Miami Herald published an extensive investigative report about\nstate and federal criminal investigations initiated more than 12 years earlier into allegations that\nJeffrey Epstein, a wealthy financier with residences in Florida, New York, and other United States\nand foreign locations, had coerced girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm\nBeach, Florida estate. The Miami Herald reported that in 2007, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern\nDistrict of Florida, R. Alexander Acosta, entered into an \"extraordinary\" deal with Epstein that\npermitted Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and a potentially lengthy prison sentence by\npleading guilty in state court to \"two prostitution charges,\" immunized from prosecution Epstein's\nco-conspirators, and concealed from Epstein's victims the terms of the NPA.\nFollowing the Miami Herald's report, and after receiving a Congressional request to\ninvestigate, OPR initiated an investigation into the allegations that prosecutors in the USAO\nimproperly resolved the federal investigation into the criminal conduct of Jeffrey Epstein by\nnegotiating and executing the NPA. OPR subsequently included in its investigation allegations\nstemming from judicial criticism of the government's conduct relating to federal prosecutors' and\nlaw enforcement agents' interactions with Epstein's victims. In July 2008, a victim, later joined\nby a second victim, filed in federal court in the Southern District ofFlorida an emergency petition\nfor enforcement of her rights under the CVRA. In February 2019, the district court found that the\ngovernment violated the CVRA by failing to advise victims about its intention to enter into the\nNPA. The court also found that letters the government sent to victims after the NPA was signed,\ndescribing the investigation as ongoing, were misleading.\nDuring the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewe\n... [truncated, 3862 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/308 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=308]", "char_count": 3862}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 309, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 310 of 348\n\nOPR evaluated the conduct of each subject based on his or her individual role in various\ndecisions and events and assessed that conduct pursuant to OPR's analytical framework. OPR\nfound that Acosta made the pivotal decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through\na state-based plea and either developed or approved the terms of the initial offer to the defense that\nset the beginning point for the subsequent negotiations that led to the NPA. Although Acosta did\nnot sign the NPA, he participated in its drafting and approved it, with knowledge of its terms.\nTherefore, OPR considers Acosta to be responsible for the NPA and for the actions of the other\nsubjects who implemented his decisions.\nBased on its extensive investigation, OPR concludes that the subjects did not commit\nprofessional misconduct with respect to the development, negotiation, and approval of the NPA.\nUnder OPR's framework, professional misconduct requires a finding that a subject attorney\nintentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard governing the conduct at\nissue. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that required Acosta to indict Epstein on\nfederal charges or that prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state. Furthermore, none\nof the individual terms of the NPA violated Department or other applicable standards.\nAs the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the \"plenary authority\" under established federal law and\nDepartment policy to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate, as long as his\ndecision was not motivated or influenced by improper factors. Acosta's decision to decline to\ninitiate a federal prosecution of Epstein was within the scope of his authority, and OPR did not\nfind evidence that his decision was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations,\nsuch as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. Evidence shows that Acosta resisted defense\neffort\n... [truncated, 4208 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/309 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=309]", "char_count": 4208}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 310, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 311 of 348\n\nprinciples was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too\nnarrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use\nthe NPA. Furthermore, because Acosta assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the\nNPA and the other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO, were transitioning to other\njobs, or were absent at critical junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination\nand communication during the negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NPA was a\nunique resolution, and one that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided.\nOPR further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional\nmisconduct with respect to the government's interactions with victims. The subjects did not\nintentionally or recklessly violate a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA by entering into\nthe NPA without consulting with victims, because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation\nwithout a federal criminal charge. Significantly, at the time the NPA was signed, the Department\ndid not interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the\nfederal courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before\ncriminal charges were brought. In addition, OPR did not find evidence that the lack of consultation\nwas for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of consultation was part of a series\nof government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of\nthe government's treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is\ncontradictory to the Department's mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims\nof a crime endure.\nOPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to\ncertain vict\n... [truncated, 4011 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/310 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=310]", "char_count": 4011}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 311, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 312 of 348\n\nOPR concludes that the decision to postpone notifying victims about the terms of the NPA\nafter it was signed and the omission of information about the NPA during victim interviews and\nconversations with victims' attorneys in 2008 do not constitute professional misconduct.\nContemporaneous records show that these actions were based on strategic concerns about creating\nimpeachment evidence that Epstein's victims had financial motives to make claims against him,\nevidence that could be used against victims at a trial, and were not for the purpose of silencing\nvictims. Nonetheless, the failure to reevaluate the strategy prior to interviews of victims and\ndiscussions with victims' attorneys occurring in 2008 led to interactions that contributed to\nvictims' feelings that the government was intentionally concealing information from them.\nAfter examining the full scope and context of the government's interactions with victims,\nOPR concludes that the government's lack of transparency and its inconsistent messages led to\nvictims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government; gave victims and the public the\nmisimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the NPA secret\nfrom the victims; and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting agreement. The\noverall result of the subjects' anomalous handling of this case understandably left many victims\nfeeling ignored and frustrated and resulted in extensive public criticism. In sum, OPR concludes\nthat the victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the\nDepartment.\n\n286\n\nEFTA02831087\n\n", "char_count": 1698}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 312, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 313 of 348\n\nMETHODOLOGY\nA.\n\nDocument Review\n\nAs referenced in the Executive Summary, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of\nthousands of pages of documents from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of\nFlorida (USAO), other U.S. Attorney's offices, the FBI, and other Department components,\nincluding the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and the Executive\nOffice for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA). The categories of documents reviewed by OPR, and their\nsources, are set forth below.\n1.\n\nUSAO Records\n\nThe USAO provided OPR with access to all of its records from its handling of the Epstein\ninvestigation and the CVRA litigation. The records included, but were not limited to, boxes of\nmaterial that Villafaiia updated and maintained through the course of both actions, which contained\npleadings from the Epstein investigation, the CVRA litigation, and other related cases; extensive\ncompilations of internal and external correspondence, including letters and emails; evidence such\nas telephone records, FBI reports, material received from the state investigation, and other\nconfidential investigative records; court transcripts; investigative transcripts; prosecution team\nhandwritten notes; research material; and draft and final case documents such as the NPA,\nprosecution memoranda, and federal indictments.\nThe USAO also provided OPR with access to filings, productions, and privileged material\nin the CVRA litigation; Outlook data collected to respond to production requests in that case; a set\nof Epstein case documents maintained by Acosta and Sloman; computer files regarding the Epstein\ncase collected by Sloman; Villafana's Outlook data; Acosta's hard drive; and the permanently\nretained official U.S. Attorney records of Acosta held by the Federal Records Center.\n2.\n\nEOUSA Records\n\nEOUSA provided OPR with Outlook data from all five subjects and six additional\nwitnesses. This information, d\n... [truncated, 3170 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/312 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=312]", "char_count": 3170}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 313, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 314 of 348\n\nAttorney's Offices was migrated to EOUSA's centralized system to be maintained. The USAO's\ndata was migrated between March and June 2008.\nEOUSA and OPR separately confirmed with the USAO that it was unable to locate any\nadditional emails. OPR questioned Acosta, as well as numerous administrative staff, about the\nemail gap. Acosta and the witnesses denied having any knowledge of the problem, or that they or,\nto their knowledge, anyone else made any efforts to intentionally delete the emails. In addition, at\nOPR's request, EOUSA conducted an analysis of records migrated from four other U.S. Attorney's\nOffices and found that each office provided data that also contained significant gaps in their U.S.\nAttorney email records, although the time periods varied for each office. OPR found no evidence\nindicating that the gap in Acosta's emails was caused by any intentional act or for the purpose of\nconcealing evidence relating to the Epstein investigation and concludes that it was most likely the\nresult of a technological error.\nAlthough a gap in Acosta's email inbox from May 26, 2007, through April 2, 2008,\nremained, OPR was nonetheless able to examine a significant number of Acosta's emails from this\ntime due to the extensive case files kept by the USAO; the availability of Acosta's sent email,\nwhich did not contain a similar gap; and the availability of emails of other USAO subjects and\nwitnesses who were included on emails with Acosta.\n3.\n\nFederal Bureau of Investigation Records\n\nOPR worked with the FBI's Palm Beach Office, including with two case agents and the\nVictim Witness Specialist who worked on the Epstein matter, to obtain relevant FBI documents.\nIn addition, the FBI searched its Automated Case Support system and also provided documentation\nconcerning its victim notification system.\n4.\n\nCriminal Division Records\n\nThe Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division provided \n... [truncated, 2995 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/313 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=313]", "char_count": 2995}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 314, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\n6.\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 315 of 348\n\nU.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida Records\n\nThe U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida provided OPR with records\nrelated to its review of evidence against Epstein, after he concluded his Florida state sentence,\nwhen the Department recused the USAO in August 2011 from \"all matters, to include the\ninvestigation and potential prosecution, relating to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual activities with\nminor females,\" and assigned the matter to the Middle District of Florida U.S. Attorney's Office\nfor further consideration. The records included a declination of the matter due to the NPA.\n7.\n\nU.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia Records\n\nThe U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District ofGeorgia provided OPR with records\nrelated to its work on the CVRA litigation after the recusal of the USAO.\n8.\n\nPublic Records\n\nOPR obtained and reviewed a variety ofpublic records, including publicly released records\nof the Palm Beach Police Department, the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit,\nand the Palm Beach Sheriffs Office; documents pertaining to the CVRA litigation and other court\nproceedings involving Epstein and related individuals; and books and media reports.\nB.\n\nInformation from Subjects, Witnesses, and Victims\n1.\n\nSubjects\n\nOPR requested that all five subjects provide written responses detailing their involvement\nin the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions\nrelating to victim notification and consultation. In addition, OPR conducted extensive interviews\nof each subject under oath and before a court reporter. Each subject was represented by counsel\nand had access to relevant contemporaneous documents before the subject's OPR interview. The\nsubjects reviewed and provided comments on their interview transcripts and on OPR's draft report.\n2.\n\nWitnesses\n\nOPR conducted more\n... [truncated, 2935 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/314 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=314]", "char_count": 2935}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 315, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 316 of 348\n\nthe victims to provide OPR with information regarding their contacts with, and notification\nreceived from, the FBI and USAO, during the period before the NPA was signed or before\nEpstein's state plea hearing, about the status of the federal investigation, about Epstein's state plea,\nor about the NPA. OPR received information from or pertaining to 13 victims.\n\n290\n\nEFTA02831091\n\n", "char_count": 454}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 316, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 317 of 348\n\nEXHIBIT 1\nState Indictment\n\nEFTA02831092\n\n", "char_count": 115}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 317, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 318 of 348\n\n[Page Intentionally Left Blank]\n\nEFTA02831093\n\n", "char_count": 120}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 318, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 319 of 348\n\nINDICTMENT\nA TRUE BILL\n\n06- q34/5-iter 1\"\n\n173\n1\"nrc:5\n!\n\nIN THE NAME OF AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF AMAIN\nIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL\nCIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA\n\nC\n\nrfP—\n.\nt-3\n\n•\n\n71\nN.)\n\n•\n\nr\nrn\n\nFor Palm Beach County, at the Spring Term thereof, in the year of our Lord Two Thoibi.kd irtid Six, to-wit:\nThe Grand Jurors of the State of Florida, inquiring in and for the body of said County of Palm Beach, upon their\noaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid, in the Circuit and State\naforesaid,\nCOUNT ONE\nFELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION\non or about or between the 1st day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 31,\n2005, did solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution lewdness, or assignation, contrary to\nFlorida Statute 796.07(1) on three or more occasions between August 01, 2004 and October 31, 2005,\ncontrary to Florida Statute 796.07(2)(f) and (4)(c). (3 DEG FEL)(LEVEL 1)\n\nagainst the form of the statute, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace and dignity of the State\nof Florida.\n\nI hereby certify that I f<\n\nttletGesnal tAuyi returning this indictment as authorized and required by law.\nLoved cc( Ply that the\ni\nI alregoop is a true copy\nv\nig hethe reco.ro„ Tnioy\naugite\nrt tat\n- .M\nK\n—UAP\nLass ant State\nW\nFifteenth Judicial Circuit of the State\nFlorida, prosecuting for the said\n- DEPUTY CLERK\nState\nS\n\n.tr\n\nf\n\nI\n\n0. cr.4\n\nI\n\n•\n\n11, nal\nie/\nP\nG AND JURY FOREPERSON\n\nJeffrey E. Epstein, Race:\n\nSex: Male, DOB\n\nSS#:\n\nIssue Warrant\n\nEFTA02831094\n\n", "char_count": 1677}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 319, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 320 of 348\n\n[Page Intentionally Left Blank]\n\nEFTA02831095\n\n", "char_count": 120}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 320, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 321of 348\n\nEXHIBIT 2\nSeptember 6, 2007\nDraft Non-Prosecution\nAgreement\n\nEFTA02831096\n\n", "char_count": 147}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 321, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 322 of 348\n\n[Page Intentionally Left Blank]\n\nEFTA02831097\n\n", "char_count": 120}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 322, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 323 of 348\n\nIN RE:\nINVESTIGATION OF\nJEFFREY EPSTEIN\n/\n\nNON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT\nIT APPEARING that Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter \"Epstein\") is reported to have\ncommitted offenses against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around\nOctober 2005, including:\n\n(1)\n\nknowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit\nan offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate\nor foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to\nengage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section\n2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371;\n\n(2)\n\nknowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in\ninterstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as\ndefined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18,\nUnited States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States\nCode, Section 2423(e);\n\n(3)\n\nusing a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly\npersuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of\nTitle 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2;\n\n(4)\n\ntraveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual\nconduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(1), with minor females; in violation of\nTitle 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and\n\n(5)\n\nknowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing,\nand obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained\nthe age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as\ndefined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code,\nSections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and\n\nIT APPEARING that Epstein has accepted responsibility for his behavior by his\nHays 1 of 4\n\nEFTA02831098\n\n", "char_count": 1971}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 323, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 324 of 348\n\nsignature on this Agreement; and\nIT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background, that\nthe interest of the United States and Epstein's own interest and the interest of justice will be\nserved by the following procedure;\nTHEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the\nSouthern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in\nfavor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following\nconditions and the requirements of this Agreement set out below.\nShould Epstein violate any of the conditions of this Agreement, the United States\nAttorney may at any time initiate prosecution against Epstein for any offense. In this case, the\nUnited States Attorney will furnish Epstein with notice specifying the conditions of the\nAgreement which he has violated.\nAfter timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for\nthe offenses set out on page 1 of this Agreement will be instituted in this District, and the\ncharges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed.\nNeither this Agreement nor any other document filed with the United States Attorney as\npart of this Agreement will be used against Epstein, except for impeachment purposes, in\nconnection with any prosecution for the above-described offenses.\nTerms of the Agreement:\n1.\n\n2.\n\nEpstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to an Information filed by\nthe State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm\nBeach County (hereinafter, the \"State Attorney's Office\") charging\nviolations of the following Florida Statutes:\n(a)\n\nlewd and lascivious battery on a child, in violation of Fl. Stat.\n800.04(4);\n\n(b)\n\nsolicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Fl.\nStat. 796.03; and\n\n(c)\n\nengaging in sexual activity with minors at least sixteen years of\nage, in violation \n... [truncated, 2317 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/323 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=323]", "char_count": 2317}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 324, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 325 of 348\n\n3.\n\nEpstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State\nAttorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and\nsentence.\n\n4.\n\nEpstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal\ninvestigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not\ncontest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District\nof Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein will not\ncontest that the identified victims are persons who, while minors, were\nvictims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections(s) 2422\nand/or 2423.\n\n5.\n\nThe United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of the\nidentified victims, which will not exceed forty, after Epstein has signed\nthis agreement and entered his guilty plea. The United States shall make\na motion with the United States District Court for the Southern District of\nFlorida for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the identified\nvictims and Epstein's counsel may contact the identified victims through\nthat counsel.\n\n6.\n\nEpstein shall enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than\nSeptember 28, 2007, and shall begin service of his sentence not later than\nOctober 15, 2007.\n\nBy signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is\nmaterial to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of\nany one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to\ninvestigate and prosecute Epstein for any and all federal offenses.\nBy signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that\nthe Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal\nprosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is\naware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure pro\n... [truncated, 3169 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/324 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=324]", "char_count": 3169}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 325, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 326 of 348\n\nagreement. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment\nand Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged\nin an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a\nprosecution against him is instituted, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the\nUnited States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury.\nBy signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and\nexplained to him.\nEpstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this\nnon-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.\n\nDated:\nJeffrey Epstein\n\nDated:\nRoy Black, Esq.\nCounsel to Jeffrey Epstein\nR. ALEXANDER ACOSTA\nUNITED STATES ATTORNEY\n\nDated:\nBy:\n\nA.\nVillafatia\nAssistant United States Attorney\n\nTlaye 4 ol 4\n\nEFTA02831101\n\n", "char_count": 973}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 326, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04116/21\n\nPage 327 of 348\n\nEXHIBIT 3\nSeptember 24, 2007\nNon-Prosecution\nAgreement\n\nEFTA02831102\n\n", "char_count": 143}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 327, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 328 of 348\n\n[Page Intentionally Left Blank]\n\nEFTA02831103\n\n", "char_count": 120}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 328, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 329 of 348\n\nIN RE:\nINVESTIGATION OF\nJEFFREY EPSTEIN\n/\nNON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT\nIT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State\nAttorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter,\nthe \"State Attorney's Office\") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey\nEpstein (hereinafter \"Epstein\");\nIT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment\nwith solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07;\nIT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of\nInvestigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any\noffenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or\naround 2001 through in or around September 2007, including:\n(1)\n\nknowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to\ncommit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means\nof interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice\nminor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States\nCode, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section\n371;\n\n(2)\n\nknowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel\nin interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as\ndefined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Tide 18,\nUnited States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States\nCode, Section 2423(e);\n\n(3)\n\nusing a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly\npersuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in\nviolation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2;\n\n(4)\n\ntraveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual\nconduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with min\n... [truncated, 2052 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/328 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=328]", "char_count": 2052}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 329, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 330 of 348\n\nof Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and\n(5)\n\nknowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting,\nenticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had\nnot attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a\ncommercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title\n18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and\n\nIT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal\nliability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits\nprovided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain\nactions with the State Attorney's Office;\nIT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by\nboth State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State\nAttorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the\nDefendant will be served by the following procedure;\nTHEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for\nthe Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be\ndeferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the\nfollowing conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below.\nIf the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that,\nduring the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this\nAgreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the\nexpiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely\nnotice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its\nprosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any\nnotice provided to E\n... [truncated, 2680 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/329 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=329]", "char_count": 2680}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 330, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 331 of 348\n\nTerms of the Agreement:\n1.\n\nEpstein shall plead guilty (not nob contendere) to the Indictment as\ncurrently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for\nPalm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495A3DCXMB) charging\none (1) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. §\n796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed\nby the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that\nrequires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of\nminors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section\n796.03;\n\n2.\n\nEpstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a\nthirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows:\n(a)\n\nEpstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12)\nmonths and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without\nany opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and\nwithout probation or community control in lieu of\nimprisonment; and\n\n(b)\n\nEpstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of\ncommunity control consecutive to his two terms in county jail\nas described in Term 2(a), supra.\n\n3.\n\nThis agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit\naccepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State\nAttorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this\nagreement.\n\n4.\n\nThe terms contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreclose\nEpstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend\nany additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/or\nincarceration.\n\n5.\n\nEpstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State\nAttorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and\nsentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph\n(2), supra.\n\n6.\n\nEpstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all\nPage 3 of 7\n\n\n... [truncated, 2014 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/330 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=330]", "char_count": 2014}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 331, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 332 of 348\n\nproposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering\ninto those agreements.\n7.\n\nThe United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of\nindividuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C.\n§ 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced.\nUpon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation\nwith and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall\nselect an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for\nby Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals\nthrough that representative.\n\n8.\n\nIf any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to\nfile suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the\njurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District\nof Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives\nhis right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages\nup to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and\nEpstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed\nexclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other\nclaim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law.\nNotwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names\nappear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on\nthis agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such\ndamages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any\ncriminal or civil liability.\n\n9.\n\nEpstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an\nadmission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional\nor other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the\nlist provided by the United States.\n\n10.\n\nExcept as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under\n18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth\n... [truncated, 2461 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/331 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=331]", "char_count": 2461}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 332, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 333 of 348\n\nsentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no\nobjection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not\nlater than January 4, 2008.\n12.\n\nEpstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to\ngain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other\ninmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit\nbased on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of\nFlorida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an\naccounting of the gain time he earned during his period of\nincarceration.\n\n13.\n\nThe parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any\npublic record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information\nAct request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of\nthe agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that\ndisclosure.\n\nEpstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the\nState Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that\nit is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his\nbest efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary\nto satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use\nhis best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding\nrecommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to\ndo so will be a breach of the agreement.\nIn consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation\nin the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions\nof this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal char cs\nagainst any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not li\n... [truncated, 2838 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/332 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=332]", "char_count": 2838}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 333, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 334 of 348\n\nBy signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is\nmaterial to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach\nof any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement\nand to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all\nfederal offenses.\nBy signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that\nthe Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal\nprosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further\nis aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court\nmay dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting\na charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein\nhereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District ofFlorida defer such\nprosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to\nthe date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be\ndeemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such\nprosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of\nthe Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the\nUnited States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute\nof limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this\nagreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the\ngrand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the\nFifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedur\n... [truncated, 2450 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/333 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=333]", "char_count": 2450}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 334, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 335 of 348\n\nBy signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read\nand explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this NonProsecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.\nR. ALEXANDER ACOSTA\nUNITED STATES ATTORNEY\nBy:\n\nDated:\n\nA.\nVILLAFARA\nASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY\nDated:\n\n7/a9\n\nDated:\nGERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ.\nCOUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN\nDated:\nLILLY ANN\nESQ.\nATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN\n\nPage 7 of 7\n\nEFTA02831110\n\n", "char_count": 545}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 335, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 336 of 348\n\nBy signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read\nand explained to him. Epstein hereby stales that he understands the conditions of this NonProsecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.\nIt. ALEXANDER ACOSTA\nUNITED STATES ATTORNEY\nDated: q . / 27. 741\n\nBy:\nTILAFARA\nA. A\nASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY\n\nDated:\nJEFFREY EPSTEIN\nDated: 7 / 9- tt 07\nESQ.\nOUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN\n\nDated:\nLa.LYANIMW\nATTORNEY R JEFFREY EPSTEIN\n\nPage 7 of 7\n\nEFTA02831111\n\n", "char_count": 560}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 336, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 337 of 348\n\nBy signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read\nand explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this NonProsecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.\nR. ALEXANDER ACOSTA\nUNITED STATES ATTORNEY\n\nDated:\n\nDated:\n\nDated:\n\nDated:4-41F 0?--\n\nBy:\nVILLAFANA\nA.\nASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY\n\nJEFFREY EPSTEIN\n\nGERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ.\nCOUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN\n\n, ESQ.\nANN\nATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN\n\nPage 7 of 7\n\nEFTA02831112\n\n\n\n[═══ TRANSCRIPT ═══]\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-PAE  Document 204-3  Filed 04116/21  Page 339 of 348  EXHIBIT 4 Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement  EFTA02831114", "char_count": 727}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 337, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 338 of 348\n\n[Page Intentionally Left Blank]\n\nEFTA02831113\n\n", "char_count": 120}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 338, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04116/21\n\nPage 339 of 348\n\nEXHIBIT 4\nAddendum to the\nNon-Prosecution Agreement\n\nEFTA02831114\n\n", "char_count": 140}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 339, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 340 of 348\n\n[Page Intentionally Left Blank]\n\nEFTA02831115\n\n", "char_count": 120}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 340, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 341 of 348\n\nIN RE:\nINVESTIGATION OF\nJEFFREY EPSTEIN\n\nADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT\nIT APPEARING that the parties seek to clarify' certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7\nof the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter \"paragraph 7\"), that agreement is modified as\nfollows:\n7A.\n\nThe United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility\nfor consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting\nthe attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the\nUnited States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the\nUnited States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney\nrepresentative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of\nthe attorney representative.\n\n713.\n\nThe parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party\nregarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to\npay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing\nsuch victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra.\n\n7C.\n\nPursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney\nrepresentative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not\nobligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus,\nif after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a\ncontested lawsuit pursuant to IS U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested\nremedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney\nrepresentative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable\nattorneys fees and costs such as those contained in s 2255 to bear the costs of the anorney\nrepresentative, shall cea\n... [truncated, 2019 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA02830776/340 or ?id=EFTA02830776&page=340]", "char_count": 2019}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 341, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 342 of 348\n\nBy signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and\nexplained to him. Epstein hereby, states that he understands the clarifications to the NonProsecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.\n\nR. ALEXANDER ACOSTA\nUNITED STATES ATTORNEY\n\nDated: /0/3 0 /O7\n\nBy: V41117 l e'l\nIf A. ME VILLAPANA\nAS ISTAIT U.S. ATTORNEY\n\nDated: /it' 743--\n\nDated:\nGERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ.\nCOUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN\n\nDated:\nLILLY ANINIlL=*E--SQ.\nATTORNEY F\nJEFFREY EPSTEIN\n\nEFTA02831117\n\n", "char_count": 578}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 342, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 343 of 348\n\nBy signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and\nexplained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the NonProsecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.\n\nR. ALEXANDER ACOSTA\nUNITED STATES ATTORNEY\n\nDated:\n\n/e h din\n\nBy:\n\nDated:\nJEFFREY EPSTEIN\n\nDated:\nRALD LEFCO RT ESQ.\nCOUNSEL TO JEFF Y EPSTEIN\n\nDated:\nLILLY ANN\nATTORNEY\n\nESQ.\nY EPSTEIN\n\nEFTA02831118\n\n", "char_count": 507}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 343, "text_content": "r\n\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 344 of 348\n\nBy signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and catifies that the above has been read and\nexplained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the NonProsecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.\n\nR. ALEXANDER ACOSTA\nUNITED STATES ATTORNEY\nDetect: AD /3 do\n\nBy:\n\n--4Y6f,/et,\nARA\nU.S. ATTORNEY\n\nDated:\nJEFFREY EPSTEIN\n\nDated:\nGERALD LBFCOURT, ESQ.\nCOUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN\n\nDated, CktPata'\n\nANCHEZ,ESa.\nLILLY A\nATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN\n\nEFTA02831119\n\n", "char_count": 567}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 344, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 345 of 348\n\nEXHIBIT 5\nState Information\n\nEFTA02831120\n\n", "char_count": 116}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 345, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 346 of 348\n\n[Page Intentionally Left Blank]\n\nEFTA02831121\n\n", "char_count": 120}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 346, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n1\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/221 Page 347 of 348\n\nIN THE CIRCUIT OURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT\nIN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA\nCRIMINAL DIVISION \"W\" (LB)\n\nowe\" 932/\n\nSTATE OF FLORIDA\n\nARISES FROM BOOKING NO.:\n2006036744\n\nvs.\nyea\n•_—\n_ • .-..•••\nn\n'•-•\n\nJEFFREY E EPSTEIN, W/M,\n\ncs\n\n-n\n\nINFORMATION FOR:\n1)\n\nPROCURING PERSON UNDER 18 FOR PROSTITUION\n\nIn the Name and by Authority of the State of Florida:\nen 1.4,\nBARRY E. KRISCHER, State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach QAty,lorida, by and\nthrough his undersigned Assistant State Attorney, charges that JEFFREY E EPSTEIN on or about or between\nthe 1 m day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 9, 2005, did knowingly and\nunlawfully procure for prostitution, or caused to be prostituted, M. a person under the age of 18 years,\ncontrary to Florida Statute 796.03. (2 DEG FEL)\n\ngekk\n\nA\nFL. BAR NO. 0776726\nAssistant State Attorney\n\nSTATE OF FLORIDA\nCOUNTY OF PALM BEACH\nAppeared before me, LANNA BELOHLAVEK Assistant State Attorney for Palm Beach County,\nFlorida, personally known to me, who, being first duly sworn, says that the allegations as set forth in the\nforegoing information are based upon facts that have been sworn to as true, and which, if true, would constitute\nthe offense therein charged, that this prosecution is instituted in good faith, and certifies that testimony under\noath has been received from the material witness or witneMQs for the off\n\nAssistant State Attorney\nSworn to and subscribed to before me th'\n\nLB/dp\n\nDynode PM\nMeaNSCSON • DOMINI EMS\n\n41\n4/ day of June, 2008.\n\nNOTARY PUBLIC,\n\nnaC\n\nFCIC REFERENCE NUMBERS:\n1) FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION 3699\n\ne of Florida\nSTATE Of FLORIDA • PALM BEACH\n\nCOUNTY\nI hereby beady that the\nforegoing is a Hue Copy\nlit anco\nmpt)eteecoro in my office.\n• 20\n\nSHARON R.\n\nOM\n\nIlia\n\nREFTA02831122\n\n", "char_count": 1915}, {"efta_number": "EFTA02830776", "page_number": 347, "text_content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE\n\nDocument 204-3\n\nFiled 04/16/21\n\nPage 348 of 348\n\n[Page Intentionally Left Blank]\n\nEFTA02831123\n\n", "char_count": 120}]}